Why The "H" Is Obama Pushing TPP?. It Will Destroy Any Legacy He Has.

[TheMastersNemesis]

TPP will certainly flush the working class down the toilet over time. It will force them to work for low third world wages. What is Obama thinking. How can he be so misguided. He is supporting a GOP program.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Not going to destroy his legacy...All presidents do some shit not everybody likes

Not for it, mind you, I think it is a horrible mistake.

[bvar22]

130. Bill Clinton already did that,

and he is LOVED by the same people whose jobs he sent overseas.

[Maedhros]

2. He doesn't work for us.

He is not terribly concerned with the working class. We're useful idiots when it comes voting time, but that's about it.

[truebluegreen]

81. Got it in one. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. Don't fall for the hype....that man holds his cards close to his vest...

[djean111]

6. So Obama (and Hillary) are lying when they say this is the best thing evah! and

Obama says he wants to work with the GOP to Fast Track it? Doubties.

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. do you have quotes?

Have you ever been wrong about what you thought Obama was going to do?

Yeah doubties is right

[Armstead]

33. Did you listen to the State of the Union?

He made the gesture of distancing himself from previous phony trade con jobs, but also made clear he is going to push for the TPP, regardless of the objections of many Democrats.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. Yes I did every word.....

I have seen him say other things too.....and do something totally different. This man holds his cards close to his vest...JUST LIKE I JUST SAID. It is purposeful.....just like YOU yourself have been wrong in the past about what he will or won't do....that is part of the strategy. You have no idea what he will or won't do. You are just as confused by this man as the rightwing. I on the other hand....have seen all of his success...and it makes me trust his judgement....he is a very successful Democratic President. I was never expecting a saint....or water walking....now you on the other hand....

[Dragonfli]

37. So, your position is that you think the President is/was lying about his support for this deal?

You also appear to imply that you feel he has lied before about other issues. "I have seen him say other things too.....and do something totally different." - what other things was he, in your opinion, lying about besides his support for this toxic "trade" deal (that is really about corporate sovereignty with very little about trade)

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. I just said my position...

did I stutter?

[Dragonfli]

49. I got it, you think he is lying based on how you judged his past behavior after contrary statements.

I acknowledged that and asked you to expand on the things in the past you alluded to as the basis for your position without actually stating what they were. Perhaps you should share with the class lest we are forced to conclude your position is based on nothing but imaginings.

If your examples make sense after you share them, perhaps I will agree with you that he is lying about this.

At the moment, I fully believe he is in earnest regarding his support.

[VanillaRhapsody]

50. No you don't "got it"

again...did I stutter?

Maybe you should try saying what YOU are saying instead of trying paraphrase what I just said...

[Dragonfli]

57. How about I just take him at his word since you provide nothing at all to convince me

that his support for this corporate sovereignty deal is anything other than sincere.

You claim to have "seen him do things" after "saying other things" as the basis for your position so I have to conclude you pulled your argument straight out of your butt or your imagination since you can provide no examples.

I asked on the off chance there was an actual basis for your odd conclusion but it appears you have nothing. No examples no quotes, only your imagination and hot air.

[bvar22]

131. Well Done.

[Dragonfli]

135. I usually don't engage these days, but the poster's position was ridiculous

It was quite annoying considering the posters tone was as confrontational as her argument was weak. In fact, confrontational, self righteous yet empty posts devoid of logic appear to comprise most of that posters short tenure here and appear to be the posters raison d'être. I just wasn't in the mood for it yesterday.

I actually tried to help the poster turn her screech into an actual argument by requesting the elements that would comprise such an argument, but received more of the same unattractive tone and lack of substance in reply (behavior that appears to be that posters trademark.)

[LondonReign2]

158. "the posters tone was as confrontational as her argument was weak"

Ayup, that's a standard VR post alright, to a tee

[INdemo]

69. So you are willing to support Obama even though he is acting like a

Republican when it comes to this TPP trade deal?.
I think an earlier post was correct when they stated that when Obama needs Democratic votes he all for Democratic issues but once elected that all changes.
A successful Democrat, a Democrat? don't think so

[AgingAmerican]

150. Let me see if I got this right...

You have seen him say one thing, but do something totally different in the past, and that makes you trust him?

Your post is word salad.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. It amazes me that people ...

immediately cling to the leaked memos (i.e., the negotiating position(s)) put out by some/a few/many/one (who knows?) of the parties to the agreement; but completely ignore the negotiating position of the US government.

And do so ... after watching, time and again, that the actual agreements President Obama enters into, actually benefits the people of the US ... maybe not perfectly, but benefits us none the less.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. The reason is 1Strong.....because they have a preconceived opinion of the man for whatever reason

and instead of praising all his success....they sit around looking for ANYTHING they can criticise him for....to justify....this "preconceived opinion" they have of him.....they are just dying for him to give them some morsel of justification for them feeling this way. So in essence they are cheering for his failure....they don't even realize what the "preconceived opinion" for whatever reason really is.....just that they MUST find something anything to justify it...so that it cannot be perceived as "THAT" preconceived opinion. In the process they totally miss ALL the things he does that negates their entire premise!

[Jim Lane]

80. Your explanation is simply preposterous

Let's take just two examples. In 2012, Obama received the endorsements of the Sierra Club and the AFL-CIO. Those organizations, however, have raised serious objections to TPP, based on their areas of expertise, environmental protection and workers' well-being.

See, these critics and others practice this thing called "nuance". One can generally support Obama, and consider him clearly superior to the likes of Romney, and yet not support every single thing he does simply because he does it.

Admittedly, that attitude also involves abandoning the comfortable assumption that anyone who disagrees with you about anything must be doing so based on a preconceived notion, or on improper motives, or the like. Instead, you must entertain the unsettling possibility that a reasonable person could come to a conclusion different from yours. This is a difficult step for some people, notably children and Republicans.

[JustAnotherGen]

123. See - I'm gonna start agreeing with them

It's easier 1Strong. Hence - yep. It's part of a long range plan. I bet it was actually drafted by the international toy cartels and that's why we don't have full detailed copy to review.

[Andy823]

127. That amazes me also

The deal, according to all the nay sayers, is so "SECRET" nobody knows what is in it yet as you say, they keep grasping at rumors, and so called leeks and claim it to all me true, the leeks from who knows who. It's always this way with the group here that say the president has done "NOTHING" at all since being elected, who trash him on a daily basis, along with the whole democratic party. They spread right wing talking points to go along with they obvious dislike for the president and the party, demand the party be PURGED of all who don't think their way, and to top it of claim the they are the only true "liberals, democrats or progressives on the board. I think their actions speak otherwise!

[Sheepshank]

149. and yet the naysayers do it over and over.

the wailing and gnashing of teeth that Obama was about to gut medicare, keystone and SS comes to mind. No of that shit ever seem to eventuate, yet as soon as a new "benghazi" rumor hits the social media, they are so quick to belive the negativism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. "TPP......should benefit American businesses and workers." Hillary Clinton

"It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect. No deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be - but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers." From her memoir.

More here: http://www.wptz.com/politics/hillary-clintons-free-trade-challenge/30694496

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. and what are the higher standards if implemented and enforced? Do you know?

No you don't....then you don't know everything.

Has this man ever surprised you before?

Yes he has...many times already....

but then WE are the people that CAN connect dots!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. You asked for a quote, you got one.

Do you know the "higher standards if implemented"? Probably not, because the negotiations are being held in secret by the capitalists and the bosses.

[Marr]

56. That one cracks me up.

Demands info, ignores info, demands new info.

[djean111]

97. That tactic is in the Disruption Playbook. That's why I did not answer the

canned demand for quotes. But y'all did a vastly superior job, and I thank you.

I think the gist, now, is that if Obama says anything we do not like, he is just being sneaky and telling lies.
And that it is okay if he does some really shitty stuff, 'cause he did some good stuff, and we are just being picky because we don't love him. And - who the fuck are WE to decide what we like and what we do not like, anyway? The whole world is out to get him, you guys, so the leaked parts of the TPP are probably MADE UP!!!!!!

[fredamae]

153. Anyway the wind blows>January 14, 2015

"As first lady, Clinton backed NAFTA and spoke highly of it at stops for the administration. But once she was elected to the Senate and later ran for president, her support of free trade -- and her husband's landmark agreement -- began to wane. On the campaign trail, Clinton acknowledged that NAFTA has "hurt a lot of American workers" and advocated for broad reform of trade policy. President Barack Obama's campaign even used the flip-flop against Clinton during the 2008 primary.

But after Clinton lost the nomination and agreed to serve as the President's Secretary of State, she began to warm up to free trade, and particularly the TPP.

In her memoir, which Clinton's spokesman said was her most updated statement on the TPP, Clinton wrote, "It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect. No deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be - but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers."

That history worries some labor leaders who are prepared to hold Clinton to a standard that includes her support of free trade agreements.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told CNN the issue of free trade could hang over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont says he'll make it a centerpiece of his campaign if he runs for president."
http://www.wptz.com/politics/hillary-clintons-free-trade-challenge/30694496

[rhett o rick]

133. All I hear is "Have faith. You don't need the truth." nm

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. OH and by the way.....about Hillary and NAFTA for the record...

Speaking of connecting dots.....

Hillary Clinton on Free Trade

Chief advocate for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (Aug 2014)
TPP agreement creates more growth and better growth. (Aug 2014)
Global trading system isn't up to standards of fairness. (Jun 2014)
China benefits from WTO and should play by WTO rules. (Jun 2014)
Have a trade prosecutor to enforce the trade agreements. (Feb 2008)
AdWatch: Supported NAFTA in 1998; opposed CAFTA since 2005. (Jan 2008)
Criticized trade pacts for weak labor standards. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: for NAFTA while First Lady; now against CAFTA. (Oct 2007)
Export from big agribusiness, but also from small farmers. (Aug 2007)
Smart, pro-American trade: NAFTA has hurt workers. (Aug 2007)
No fast-track authority for this president. (Aug 2007)
Better approach: real trade adjustment assistance. (Aug 2007)
End tax breaks for outsourcing jobs. (Jun 2007)
Defended outsourcing of US jobs to India. (Oct 2005)
Globalization should not substitute for humanization. (Jun 1999)
Supports MFN for China, despite concerns over human rights. (Oct 2000)
Voting Record

Though Bill supported it, Hillary opposed NAFTA. (Oct 2007)
Voted against CAFTA despite Bill Clinton’s pushing NAFTA. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Build a rule-based global trading system. (Aug 2000)
Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy. (Jun 2007)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. And, she's backing the TPP as she backed Bush's wars.

But, she's a "real" Democrat not an "Left leaning Independent" Democrat like the senators who voted against the wars. Right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. Just Like i said...you cannot connect dots!

[rhett o rick]

132. Hype? What hype? There are a lot of intellegent people that have come out with

very specific to deny the TPP and I've yet to see one come out in favor. I haven't seen anyone willing to explain how this secret agreement will help anyone but corporations.

From your post, I take your point to be, "trust Obama completely".

This is what Sen Sanders says:
1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.
8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.
10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.

Do you call that "hype"??

[Autumn]

4. I doubt he's concerned about his legacy. The corporations want this and isn't

that really all that matters?

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. thats what YOU think....

well you and the other Left Leaning Independents on this site that hate the successful Democratic President Barack Obama!

[BrotherIvan]

17. Oh that's what it means!

I asked you when you hurled LLI at me what it meant, but you didn't answer.

So let's set this straight: you claim to be a Democrat but you hate anyone who leans left.

And you think that Obama is successful because he doesn't lean left.

So that pretty much equals a MODERATE REPUBLICAN.

Makes perfect sense.

[VanillaRhapsody]

22. No that is not what I said it means...it means...if you cannot pledge to vote for whomever

wins the Democratic Election...THEN you are automatically an Independent....YOU left that part out

By the way....there is plenty of grey area...between Left Leaning Independent and Moderate Republican...you proved my point by even saying that...THANKS!

[rhett o rick]

134. I don't think you know Democrats very well. We don't ever walk in lock-step.

I will always support Democrats but never support all Democrats. I will not support Democrats that won't follow Democratic Principles. Principles are more important than winning. We have gotten where we are as a country because Democrats have steadily moved to the Right and justified it by the "lesser of evils" meme. Well you go ahead and support the candidate bought and paid for by the Oligarchs (Goldman-Sachs), but not me. Call me whatever makes you feel better but I am a better Democrat than those that do whatever they are told by Goldman-Sachs.

There are two wings in the Democratic Party, the Sen Warren Wing that supports the 99%, and the other wing that supports the 1% (Goldman-Sachs).

If you are ok with the status-quo, vote for HRC for 8 more years of creeping tyranny.

[VanillaRhapsody]

24. Why do YOU think that there are no Democrats that are Left?

You see....Independents do not get to define the Democratic Party!

[Autumn]

20. I will proudly wear the mantle of LLI that you my dear friend have bestowed on me.

I will consider it an endearment from you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. its not an endearment believe me!

[Autumn]

25. I disagree with you my dear friend. It is an endearment you have bestowed on me.

I shall cherish it and our friendship.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. I am the one that said it....I think I know what I meant....

You can cherish whatever you want....but our friendship is non existent...like I said...I am friends with DEMOCRATS who WILL vote for whomever we select in OUR Primary election...YOU don't fit that bill.

[Autumn]

27. Ah my dear friend, don't be confused. I am well aware of the honor you have bestowed on me.

I do indeed lean left

[Autumn]

30. An epithet that you dearest Nilla have bestowed on me.

I am humbled that you know me so well, I nothing more than words on a screen, that you knew well it before I did. Your insight stuns me, it truly does.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. I don't bestow....I just tell the truth.

I don't know anything about you other than you are a Left Leaning Independent....that is all I need to know...oh yeah other than you hate this successful Democratic President Barack Obama!

[Autumn]

32. Yes indeed you do dearest Nilla. Are you perchance a psychic? If so I would so dearly

love a reading.

[BrotherIvan]

68. I bow

Cheers to all those who LEAN LEFT!!

[aspirant]

90. "LEAN LEFT

Lefties listen, Righties ridicule

Lefties lead, Righties ration

[elias7]

74. Can you be any more condescending?

Apologies, my dear friend Autumn, mind games and sarcasm are two pet peeves of mine.

[Marr]

76. But intentional insults aren't, apparently.

You object not to the person who meant to insult, but to the person who chose to sidestep it.

Something tells me your position would be reversed if the players were.

[Autumn]

104. Yes I can be very much more condescending. I have pet peeves of my own.

And instead of being nasty I do my best to make friends of those who are most insistent that I bow down to their way of thinking. I don't want to be nasty with a fellow DUer that would be so wrong. What can I say, it's just the way I am. I think it may be a LLI trait.

[Buns_of_Fire]

92. Another bravura performance! The crowd is going wild!

I already know y'all have nixed a national tour, but could we maybe schedule you two for a guest appearance at the Democratic debates (assuming the party bothers to have any)?

[Autumn]

111. The Democratic debates would be doable on my behalf.

[Jim Lane]

63. Let a great American writer shed some light on this.

Ambrose Bierce, in The Devil's Dictionary, defined the term "mugwump" -- now out of fashion, but decades ago it referred to a person who, to paraphrase VR, would not unconditionally pledge to support a particular party. (Picture someone perched on a fence, with the mug (face) on one side and the wump (butt) on the other.) Bierce wrote:

MUGWUMP, n. In politics one afflicted with self-respect and addicted to the vice of independence. A term of contempt.

So, Autumn, I'm afraid that Vanilla Rhapsody may have the better of you on this one. To say that person evaluates candidates based on their merits rather than on their party affiliation is not at all an honor (at least in the eyes of some).

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. The dig isn't assimple as ...

evaluat(ing) candidates based on their merits rather than on their party affiliation

Voting for an imperfect Democrat (i.e., the Democratic nominee who was not your first, or 15th choice) over any republican ... which is what VR actually said ... IS, in fact, evaluating that candidate on his/her merits ... unless you can find a republican that you consider better on the issues than that imperfect Democrat.

[Jim Lane]

75. I agree with your position but not with VR's.

Your post ends with "unless you can find a republican that you consider better on the issues than that imperfect Democrat." That's the qualification that makes your view reasonable rather than absolutist.

While I confess to not having avidly followed all of Vanilla Rhapsody's posts, I don't remember seeing one that strayed from absolutism. By VR's standards (if applied impartially), that phrase at the end of your post would be enough to classify you as one of those demonic LLI's.

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. How so ...

I doubt I would ever find a republican, better on the issues than a Democrat. I suspect, VR's statement:

No that is not what I said it means...it means...if you cannot pledge to vote for whomever wins the Democratic Election...THEN you are automatically an Independent....YOU left that part out

Was assumed, as evidenced by his next statement:

By the way....there is plenty of grey area...between Left Leaning Independent and Moderate Republican...you proved my point by even saying that...THANKS!

[Jim Lane]

79. Finding a Republican better than the Democrat -- very rare, but not impossible.

I've voted Republican a few times in my life. One of the Democrats against whom I voted subsequently took a plea and did some time. I don't regret that vote. If my unrepentance condemns me to LLI-land, so be it.

To be sure, a race with a better Republican was always unusual, and the increasing polarization of the parties makes it even less likely now. The "Rockefeller Republican" types in the Northeast have become Democrats and the Dixiecrat Democrats have become Republicans. It's quite possible that I'll never again vote Republican, but I refuse to take an absolute loyalty oath.

[1StrongBlackMan]

96. Okay. n/t

[Autumn]

113. Sorry Jim, I will never take a loyalty oath. That's just how I am.

[Jim Lane]

145. I quite agree and I'm sure Bierce would, too.

Bierce used negative terms ("afflicted" and "vice&quot to refer to positive features (self-respect and independence). That part of his definition was sarcasm.

The second part, however ("A term of contempt&quot was probably accurate reporting about the usage. It says to me that Bierce, back in his day, dealt with the VanillaRhapsody type. Then as now, there are party loyalists who disdain anyone who won't take a loyalty oath.

[840high]

82. Yes. He's looking out

for his future.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I hope he saves himself from himself.

I sincerely hope he fails in this endeavor.

[99Forever]

7. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Apparently, when one reaches some level of political power, one forgets all they once professed to stand for, who put them where they are, and any pretense of morals or ethics.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

9. ALL? So NOTHING Obama has done is any good, NOTHING?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

12. this is what you said

Apparently, when one reaches some level of political power, one forgets all they once professed to stand for, who put them where they are, and any pretense of morals or ethics.

so you said ALL and NOT ONLY THAT but that he has NO morals or ethics, right?

Or am I reading this wrong???


FYI, I have lots of complaints about the man, his policies, but what you said is very different than just disagreeing

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

14. Uh huh...or else you could just admit that your comment was way too harsh about our Prez

[truedelphi]

87. Thank you 99Forever.

Very true sentiments.

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. From what I can see, he thinks it is a great idea that will help Americans.

I just don't know the details of why he thinks that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Because ...

I just don't know the details of why he thinks that.

The US government's negotiating objectives will weaken, if not end, the labor arbitrage that drew American jobs off shore.

[Agnosticsherbet]

44. So he has announced that as his reason?

I had not heard that.

Do you have a link?

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. It's in the US Trade Representative website ...

https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives

And he was a little more clear in his recent "we are fighting yesterday's battles" speech ... that had segments of the left thinking he called them stupid. (I'll try and find a link.)

[Marr]

59. That's standard neoliberal claptrap.

They've been telling the working class that removing barriers to international trade is a panacea to all our ills for literally decades now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. Okay ...

But what is listed as the US government's objectives in THIS is brand new.

[BlueCaliDem]

67. I don't think that Obama-skeptic expected an answer. heh... eom

[PADemD]

58. Maybe he hasn't read it, either.

[Skittles]

83. there is no way in hell he actually believes that

no way

[Agnosticsherbet]

86. there is not way to tell if it is really vast governmental conspiracy

against the working class, either.

We are talking about competing economic theories.

Ideology, be it political, religious , or economic work essentially like religions. They believe what they believe.

They OP made a statement on the motivation of the President, when there is no indication that he us motivated to do evil.

[hifiguy]

16. TPTB want it badly.

It will solidify the plutocracy and finally kill the US middle class.

They will get it.

Why was Obama twisting arms to pass a bill that let the banksters go back to gambling with federally insured deposits? They own the government is why.

[snappyturtle]

102. +1 Yep....that's the way I see it too. I feel

cornered and cheated. I love the tranparency cloak that has been placed on us, individuals, but 'we the people' know so little what TPTB have up their sleeves. Disgusting.

[Hoyt]

18. Let's just sit on sidelines and let other countries get a leg up.

Right now, all we have are folks saying he's going to sell us down the river, with little if any evidence of that. If it's a bad deal, it won't get approved, probably won't get his endorsement either.

[Armstead]

34. It's not abouit other countries or us -- It's about civil society vs. Big Money Corporations

These phony con-jobs are not about "trade" rules between countries. Their real purpose is to strip away the ability of nations to pass and enforce their own laws. It turns the traditional role of government over to the whims of Big Corporations, by placing national policies at the mercy of insider trade authorities.

It's a bad deal, but the bought and paid for politicians will go along with it. Why the hell do you think the majority of supporters of it are Republicans?

[Hoyt]

46. I think you are misinterpreting all the conspiracy fears.

[Maedhros]

72. You should educate yourself.

Concern over the TPP is not "conspiracy fear" and to suggest it is demonstrates that either you know nothing about it or are simply repeating a talking point you picked up elsewhere.

Here are some links to get you started:

First, the conservative overview by the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

Then, here are some different takes from trusted liberal sources:

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/28753-the-trans-pacific-partnership-will-sink-the-middle-class

[Hoyt]

85. Those same folks were telling us Obama was going to approve the pipeline, gut social security, and

a lot worse.

You'll see in the end. A cruddy agreement will not get fast tracked, or otherwise approved.

[Armstead]

98. You have to look at the trees to see the forest

Look at the cumulative effect of all of the past trade agreements....Shit even Hillary tried to distance herself from NAFTA when she was running last time, even though she's still on the fast-track railroad.

These agreements stink. The only people who support them are the Oligarchs who benefit from them and the politicians they have purchased and/or conned.

It's not all that complicated.

[Hoyt]

103. Actually, even folks like Paul Krugman think folks are blaming NAFTA for stuff caused by other

factors.

"I am in general a free trader; there is, I’d argue, a tendency on the part of some people with whom I agree on many issues to demonize trade agreements, to make them responsible for evils that have other causes."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/suspicious-nonsense-on-trade-agreements/

He does go on to say he has some suspicions, but he doesn't say the agreements are bad for us. Personally, I think we'd be a lot worse off -- perhaps in different ways -- without NAFTA.

I have a hard time blaming NAFTA for trends occurring long before the agreement was enacted. I get a lot of folks do blame NAFTA, but it's just a convenient target for things that might have actually been much worse without NAFTA.

[Armstead]

125. I don't think they would have been worse. Instead NAFTA made the worse easier to accomplish.

A trade policy in itself is not bad, when it is is limited to trading regulations.

But the purpose of a trade agreement should be to protect the domestic economy. Two sided agreements that are focused allow for negotiations and terms that enforce free and fair trade between specific nations.

But the "freetraders" had a propaganda campaign to make the term "protectionism" a dirty word. And, tayhjer than negotiating actual trade, it is enforcing a tight-wing, corporatist ideology over all governments and nations.

We should be protecting American job, not making it easier for big multinational corporations to poush us towards a race to the bottom by undermining out ability to protect labor rights, wages, environmental standards, etc.

[Hoyt]

126. Protecting the status quo, or preparing domestic economy for the future? I lean toward latter in a

Last edited Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

world economy. While I'd prefer to see our society and economy dominated by a bunch of mom-and-pop buggy whip and blacksmith shops, it just ain't that way anymore. We can't protect American jobs by isolating ourselves. If we want to have healthcare, welfare, education, etc., we gotta deal with the world as it is. Of course, we do have to tax the hell out of corporations that profit form that.

I don't like the way things are changing and how it impacts good folks. But, trying to protect American jobs by failing to respond to changes in the world economy will make it worse. Sorry, that's how I feel.

[Maedhros]

136. Criticism of the TPP is based upon leaked documents showing that actual "trade provisions"

make up a minority of the TPP.

You should read up on it. It's a corporatist's dream.

[Hoyt]

140. Have you read and understood the entire document, and factored in all the parts that aren't

anywhere near final?

[Maedhros]

141. Of course not.

You are, apparently, not aware that the "entire document" is secret. That's the biggest problem with it - deliberately hiding the details of the agreement from the public.

You place way too much trust in the corporate agenda for my tastes.

Bye.

[Hoyt]

142. It ain't finished. When it is, you and I can read it. Chill out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. That has been the man's pattern. n/t.

[n2doc]

19. Same reason Clinton pushed Nafta and repeal of banking laws. $$$

See how well he and his family have done for themselves since he left office. He makes huge amounts of money giving speeches to the 1%. So does HRC.

Compare to Carter. Now JC doesn't seem to be the money grubbing type, but he certainly also doesn't seem to be making the 200k a speech to bankers, either.

[truedelphi]

23. OBAMA and every single one of the Centrist Dems are not the

"lesser of two evils" -- they are the necessary evils.

If a George or Jeb Bush tried to do this to us, we would be storming the Bastille. But because "OBAMA! Rah! Rah! Rah!" we have to remember that the poor man is victim to racist threats etc.

And like Clinton before him, he is not concerned about his legacy. He is concerned about the huge payout for the quid pro quo, in giving the Powers that Be the endless wars, the trillions of dollars in Bailouts in perpetuity to the Big Financial firms, the privatizing of prisons and schools.

Monsanto and the GM industry owes him as well.

The money he will make once he retires from the Oval Office will make anything that Bill Clinton has made look like chump change. (And it is reported that Clinton has received a quarter of a billion dollars.)

[hifiguy]

29. And he will be VERY handsomely rewarded if TPP goes through.

Make book on it. The payoffs come AFTER the presidency is over. See Clinton, Bill. Obama will be worth the better part of a billion 10 years out of office.

[Egnever]

38. LOL

He would do that with or without the Top. He will be one of the most demanded speakers till the day he dies. What an amazing prediction you have made.

[appalachiablue]

78. +10.

[JustAnotherGen]

129. +100

[NYC Liberal]

55. So now Obama is evil. Got it.

Thankfully that sentiment is confined to an extreme minority of Americans.

[truedelphi]

71. No actually the Pew Survey and polls on Americans take on the 2 big money parties

Are showing consistently that people want to do something other than vote for Demcorats or Republcians, (especially since more and more peopel figure out that the Democrats are the current day Republicans, and the real Democrats are non existent.)

Both in polls taken the spring of 2008, and polls taken over the last 18 months show that a mere 36% of all Americans consider themselves to be Democrats. And a mere 22 to 24% consider themselves to be Republicans.

So only around 60% of all voters care about the bought and paid for Corporatists, who mouth liberal platitudes during election cycles but sell us out once in office.

That leaves the majority, some 40% of us, trying to reform one of the two parties, or simply joining a third party.

The Libertarians are very popular right now, since neither of the two Major Parties are showing much initiative around the legalization of cannabis.

And talking to a friend today, someone who was active in the early days of the civil rights struggle, she is saying she would vote for Perot. She called my fears about his being a racist unfounded fears. She is almost eighty - if Perot's "government off my back and out of my medical cabinet" views have her support, I can only imagine that younger people are thinking about the wisdom in that message.

Even Rolling Stone, which has gone bananas over Obama, has had articles on the cannabis legalization issue, saying that Hillary Clinton needs to get on board whole heartedly, rather than being agaisnt it. Or she will find her match in a third party candidate.

[NYC Liberal]

84. Sorry, but the "two parties are the same" is a right-wing meme designed to depress turnout

and that helps only one party: the Republican party. No, the two parties are not the same. Ask yourself if you'd have wanted Mitt Romney appointing Supreme Court justices, or "letting Detroit go bankrupt"; or John McCain dealing with Iran or deciding whether to sign women's rights and LGBT rights legislation and EOs.

It's not all about pot. Yes it should be legal. But just because that's what nutjob libertarians care about doesn't mean that's the biggest issue in this country.

The idea that a third-party candidate will beat Hillary Clinton because of pot is just laughable, especially when she beats every major REPUBLICAN candidate by double digits.

[pampango]

95. And the Pew Survey shows that Democrats support TPP much more than republicans do.

On this issue do we "try to reform" the Democratic Party so that it agrees with the position of the republican base? Are there other issues in which liberal 'reform' of the D party would entail agreeing with the right wing base?

[pampango]

52. I suspect he knows what is in it and does not think it will "flush the working class down the toilet

over time".

He has proven in recent negotiations with China and India that he is serious about international agreements on climate change. Why is hard to believe that he would want environmental protections to be part of this international agreement, too? Why do some also assume that he does not care about labor rights and would not want to see them in this agreement?

Do liberals not want environmental protections and enforceable provision on labor rights in our rules of trade? If such provisions are not part of trading rules doesn't THAT make it harder for us to compete with "third world wages"? Or do we want labor and environmental provisions to be factors in trade but we just not trust Obama to do that?

[treestar]

60. He doesn't agree.

Ever at least considered why?

[rurallib]

61. The major contributors to his campaigns were the finance industry

[MisterP]

64. because he knows the brainless high-fiving "Obama knocks out/huge win/OUTFLANKS" headlines will be

written until the Sun starts fusing helium?

he can do whatever he wants because enough people literally say he can do literally anything and they'd support him

[Skittles]

93. now we've got DUers telling us TPP *HAS* to be great for Americans BECAUSE Obama is pushing it

OMG - do not ever think they can't get any more stupid - dumber than fence posts I tell you

[StopTheTPP]

65. Call your representative and senators tomorrow and tell them NO on TPP / Fast Track / TPA

[Jack Rabbit]

66. That's exactly what I think

How long will it take for one of those private health care racketeers to sue the US before a tribunal of corporate shysters under the the TPP to invalidate the ACA?

[90-percent]

70. The whole deal is brazen Oligarch's gone wild

TPP is public policy that has to be put into law by our elected representatives. It is being negotiated secretly by corporations that we did not elect. Our representatives are not allowed very much access, if any, to learn what’s in it and if they reveal anything they know about what’s in it they could be imprisoned. Elizabeth Warren asked somebody who knew what was in it and was told it has to be kept secret because if the public knew what was in it they would not like it.

And with fast track it could bypass all our elected representatives and any form of public or private debate at all! The whole deal completely bypasses any form of representative democracy and so we have a LAW crafted in secret that affects all of us that comes to be simply by the President, by fast track, telling all of us; “Trust me, this is a really good deal for you all.”

If it’s going to be so fucking good for all of us, perhaps it should also be considered good enough to withstand the scrutiny of the basic principles and system of checks and balances of our democracy?

-90% Jimmy

[NanceGreggs]

88. Ir's so obvious.

Obama, who has already established a "legacy" most presidents would envy, apparently thinks - as do so many here - that the TPP will destroy the American working middle-class, and THIS is what he wants to be remembered for. Forget all of his truly amazing accomplishments up to this point - what he really wants to do is obliterate all of that, preferring to go down in history as the prez who signed the treaty that erased everything he had achieved in one mighty swipe of the pen.

Obama is kow-towing to the Corporations because, let's face it, he's going to need the money once he leaves his current employment. Without some as-yet-to-be-determined quid pro quo compensation for doing the bidding of Big Biz, the Obamas - already wealthy people - will have to eke out an existence from the Prez's substantial pension income as an ex-POTUS, and the certainty that he will become, on the very day he leaves office, THE most in-demand speaker not only in the country, but in the world.

If all else fails, Obama can always scratch together a new book - although finding a publisher who's willing to fork out millions in advance monies for a book guaranteed to fly off the shelves still makes the whole venture a bit iffy at best.

Or it could be fame - yes, that's it. FAME. Unless he is successful in making life miserable for millions of American workers by signing an agreement meant to force them to work for Third World wages, the first black American president will face a world where he is completely forgotten - until he shows up on a "Where are they now?" montage put together by a seventeen-year-old film-maker wannabe who posts it to YouTube in the hopes that it goes viral.

So there you have it. Obama is willing to sell the entire country down the river in exchange for a "legacy" that makes him as popular as bubonic plague, will earn him "compensation" from Big Biz because he has no other means of making TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars, and will afford him the fame and name recognition that would have eluded him otherwise.

It all makes so much ... sense.

[JonLP24]

89. I have no idea why he is pushing this

but having no other means wouldn't be necessary to do it for "compensation". The already wealthy do plenty of things to make even more wealth, why do you think they do all that union busting & tax breaks? They don't have to but they do it anyways.

Like I said I don't know but you didn't offer an explanation either.

[NanceGreggs]

91. The fact is ...

... that there is NO explanation as to why Obama would destroy his already enviable legacy in order to sell the country out. It is a ludicrous concept being promoted by people who themselves cannot come up with a plausible explanation as to why he would do so.

So the obvious conclusion would be that the TPP does not in any way harm the American worker in the ways being posted about here, and that's why Obama is for it.

[ChosenUnWisely]

94. Becasue it is what his backers and who he really supports wants.

We will know them by their deeds.

[djean111]

99. The "trade" part of this thing is only five chapters or so. Out of 28 or 29.

The real unsavory meat is that the investor state can sue sovereign states any time they feel a law or regulation impacts perceived profits, and can sue in a corporate court, judged by corporate lawyers, and citizens must either pay up perceived lost profits or actually weaken or get rid of the unwanted rules, regulations, or laws.

THAT is the money shot. The lawyers are getting ready. The English have figured this out, thus the anti-TTIP demonstrations.
Yeah, Obama is perfect for this, because any critic is branded a racist. Brilliant!

Oh, and I don't think the actual meme is that both parties are the same. One party, the GOP, sucks, and the other party has shifted so much to the right that it sucks too, just not as badly. Need a party that is where the Democratic Party used to be, before it got Incorporated.

[90-percent]

100. "Like tying a cement block to the feet of a drowning man"

Thanks, Thom!

&x-yt-ts=1422327029&x-yt-cl=84838260

-90% Jimmy

[KoKo]

105. Yes...from even the little we know from Wikileaks..Thom nails it.

And, remember with "Fast Track" only a select group of Senate and House Members will know what's in it and wont be able to discuss it.

[appalachiablue]

159. Thanks for posting this, TH is the best, and he's right. A couple years ago he mentioned looking

to buy a sports coat in downtown DC. The staff at stores didn't have any made in the USA, only one place had a coat from Canada. Now that we've lost it all, I remember stores and businesses in most communities that were locally owned by families: furniture stores, clothing stores, jewelers, shoe stores, pharmacies, restaurants, hardware stores, garden centers. And the great products made in the US from cars & TVs to Manhattan shirts, Levi jeans, appliances, more.

[merrily]

101. First African American POTUS. No one and nothing will or can take that legacy.

Shame on us that it took so long, too!

[Pisces]

106. I will note your concern.

[B Calm]

107. Now that republicans control the house and senate, it will pass easily and

then the republicans will sit on their fat hemorrhoidal asses and point their brown stained fingers at democrats for passing it for the next 30 years. (Just Like NAFTA)

[NCTraveler]

108. If Democrats didn't get a clue after the passage of the ACA..

they sure as hell aren't going to wake up for this one.

[B Calm]

109. Thanks to ACA my wife and I were able to retire at age 62.

Don't see the connection to unfare trade deals.

[NCTraveler]

112. When did you plan on retiring?

The connection is pretty clear. I have yet to hear of the mass movement of people out of the workforce because of the ACA.

Interesting read if one is so inclined. Also covers retirement and some of the reasons. Taking one anecdote, when there are so many effected, is not the best way to discuss an issue.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixC.pdf

It's effects on retirement are limited. Often the burden being placed mainly on the individual.

[B Calm]

121. Originally I planned to retire at age 55, but thanks to NAFTA the cellophane plant I was working

at closed their doors and moved to Mexico.

[Recursion]

110. No, the fear about it is as overblown as Ross Perot's "Great Sucking Sound"

NAFTA raised wages in both the US and Mexico (it hurt Canada a bit). It was, ultimately, the most effective trade framework anyone has come up with -- China would love to be in a NAFTA-like block with us, but they could never live up to the labor commitments involved.

Anyways, Obama is pushing for the TPP because he hopes it will have the same effect NAFTA did, and kick off a decade or so of awesome job growth like we had in the 1990s. It probably won't, because we've already picked all the low-hanging fruit, but when your only tool is a hammer. Anyways, that's the "why", if you were actually curious.

[closeupready]

115. Your claims here were thoroughly debunked last time you made them.

Why are you continuing to flog that dead horse?

[Recursion]

116. No, but I acknowledge that you keep claiming that

I would trade today's economy for the late 1990s any time.

[closeupready]

117. You'd take the 1990s economy, but even more inequality than we have now, i.e., Calcutta.

Right. I saw your other thread.

Anything new to cover here?

[Recursion]

118. Nope. Nice dig against Indians, though!

Good job.

[closeupready]

120. lol, you got nothing but lies. Yup, lol,

how predictable.

[B Calm]

124. I agree, but that don't stop the same 2 posters (who work overseas) from posting it over and over

[joshcryer]

143. Please stop crapping on Recursion.

The thread he made was basically left up in the air by anyone contributing anything substantive. I still disagree on certain points, but it wasn't like the data wasn't there or that there wasn't a comprehensive discussion.

"Thoroughly debunked" is patently dishonest.

[closeupready]

144. I will not be silenced from refuting right wing arguments presented by DU members here.

Not by you or anyone else.

[joshcryer]

148. No, you just want to silence others with petty insults.

I'll continue to defend good DUers from the hateful onslaught, even as a target myself.

[closeupready]

154. Bye-bye!

[joshcryer]

157. Oh good.

[pampango]

128. Perot's "giant sucking sound" may be the republican sound bite most quoted by Democrats.

Perot's claim looked pretty foolish for the rest of Clinton's administration. The inauguration of fellow-republican Bush with his supply-side economic made Perot look like a genius.

[Calista241]

114. He wants trade to be governed by our rules, rather than China's.

right now, we're the safer bet, but in the future, China may be the trading powerhouse that we currently are. By forming this agreement now, we have more leverage.

[Hoyt]

146. A voice of reason. Thank goodness. We can't just sit on our rears and watch the world pass us by,

unless we are prepared to return to the 1930s as dirt farmers. Truthfully, I'd be fine with that, but I don't think most would.

That doesn't mean the final agreement will be perfect. But if it is bad, Obama won't endorse it. At this point in the negotiations, he has to talk positive and as if he supports it.

If he told the world he's going to let our Congress in on the detailed negotiations, the world would tell him to stick it.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. It makes one wonder what the discussion really is within the establishment.

They give us platitudes and pablum, but somewhere *serious people* who think they are smarter and better than us peasants think this is a *good idea* for reasons they are not going to share.

[JustAnotherGen]

122. Maybe he wants to destroy it?

Maybe that's been the end game all along. Throw us a few bones so he could do this? Must have been part of a very long range plan he had.

[mattclearing]

137. 11-dimensional chess dictates that he is secretly against it.

TPTB want it, and, much like Keystone XL and chained CPI, he is stalling while surrogates rustle up public opposition.

[Feron]

138. Side by side of Obama's SOTU address and what's in the TPP.

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2015/01/obama-vs-obama-the-state-of-the-unions-self-defeating-trade-pitch.html




Don't like it? Contact your congress critter and tell him/her to oppose fast tracking it:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I don't think Obama is misguided. I think he's just a neoliberal salesman.

[NanceGreggs]

139. Still wating for YOUR explanation ...

... or anyone else's, as to why a POTUS with an already-established "legacy" would throw it all away in order to establish himself as the prez who destroyed the lives of millions of hard-working Americans by signing off on a trade deal that would (according to some here) do exactly that.

[Hoyt]

147. I don't believe he is doing that. Nor do I believe he will endorse a bad deal if that is what

the final agreement is.

He can't be negative at this point while the proposed agreement is in negotiations. And he can't tell the potential parties to any agreement, he's going to let Congress negotiate details. The potential parties to the agreement would tell him to stick it.

I still believe if the final form is bad, Obama won't endorse it. But that's impossible to prove among folks who believed he was going to support the pipeline, gut social security, and generally sell us down the river.

[Sunlei]

151. You think trade is why Congress refuses to raise the Federal minimum wage?

[fredamae]

152. Money, Wall Street/Corporate Wants, Congress Gives

and POTUS signs the 1% cheers, FOX "No-news" Bashes Obama.
There. Done and done.

[tridim]

155. LOL

You don't know the President AT ALL.

History is history.

[fredamae]

156. Did I name Any POTUS?

Aside from FOX Bashing Obama? It's just how "it's" done, since forever - regardless of who the POTUS is...is it not?

[StopTheTPP]

160. K&R