I would much rather have Pres. Obama or Sec. Clinton negotiating trade deals

[arely staircase]

or arms control deals or any kind of deal than any Republican living or dead.

[Fred Sanders]

1. Obama is a secret Republican, didn't you hear! Nicely and succinctly put. No other counter argument

or detail is required.

Some folks on Du will jump on anything to set their hair on fire about their own President...so they say.

Obama has spent 6 years fighting the GOP and now is the only thing standing between them and fascism......so now is the time to abandon him, right?....give your silly heads a shake, folks.

I trust Obama. Period.

How many jobs did NAFTA "destroy"? History is a teacher, and some have learned, from NAFTA for example, to keep the Hair on Fire lighter fluid on free trade in the can.

President Cruz or Huckabee, or President neo-Jesus, negotiating a trade deal...would NOT be better.

Get it?

Folks can take their non-trust somewhere else.

[arely staircase]

3. honestly, I agree with some of the concerns with TPP

but I also trust Obama, especially to get a better deal for workers and the environment than any GOPer when it comes to trade deals.

[Fred Sanders]

5. Obama will NOT make a deal not in the interests of Americans and the middle class. He..will..not.

Concern, yes, trust, no, verify, yes....trust Obama. Or not.

I am not an international trade and economic expert.....or able to decipher the details....but I trust Obama who trust his experts, HIS experts, and that is good enough.

In times like these we have to have the President's back...have you see what has happened to the second party in a two party state?

Wake the fuck up folks, stop the silly Obama bashing....the early morning lurker RECS are not worth it, and the arguments are weak anyway....no one on DU understands TPP better than Obama.

No one.

[marmar]

21. HIS experts have included the likes of Larry Summers....

Timothy Geithner, Penny Pritzker, Robert Rubin. We're supposed to trust them? Blind faith in anyone isn't wise, especially when confronted with reality.
Obama has plenty of good -- health care, net neutrality etc-- but I'm sorry, he hasn't been an unwavering supporter of the working/middle classes.

[Fred Sanders]

23. And what kind of unwavering support for the working class would the other party choice of two choices..have?

[treestar]

54. We have blind faith in people we don't know of

every day. The military, the government, doctors, pilots, etc.

In the end Larry Summers is just an expert. You may think you don't agree with him. You may not even realize you would if you knew as much.

[sabrina 1]

38. You understand that Obama won't be President for life?? Giving up Congress' right to negotiate

Trade Deals means that a Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan will have the same powers. Will you trust Ryan to protect our environment, livable wages for the Working Class etc.

Do you understand why this has failed before, why even some more rational Repubs refused to give BUUSH the same powers?

This is not about Obama. H is just the latest president being used to complete the Corporate Global oligarch control over the world economy.

If you're okay with Congress losing its sovereign role as the legislative Branch and giving their power to a President, then you will not be complaining or you were not complaining when Bush tried to this in 2007.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. then we just better make sure Bush or Ryan don't become President...

[sabrina 1]

63. So you're okay with tempting fate dreamig that we will never again have a Republican President,

and okay with giving away Congress' Constitutional Role as the legislative body of this country to FOREING CORPORATIONS?

Good luck, thankfully you are in a very small minority as Americans on all sides understand the seriousness of what this means.

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. Tempting FATE?

You dare say that to me....the one that supports the candidate with the best odds walking away in the Primary...the candidate with the best odds against the field in the General...while you want the rest of us to vote for the long LONG shot.....you want to step to me about "tempting fate"???

GMAFB!!!



Lets check the odds for today shall we???

HRC's odds of winning the General...46.3....her next closest competitor is Jeb...his odds of a successful campaign and election...16.8....followed by Ryan who is at a whole 0.3!!!

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president

by the way... FYI...I am not the one that is in the "minority of Americans" views in this conversation..

[sabrina 1]

67. Are you really saying that this country will never again have a Republican in the WH?

You are saying that Democrats will win every election into the foreseeable future, so it's okay to take away Congress' Constitution right as the legislative body of the US Government because you 'belieeeeeve' we have no worries ever again about a Republican ever again winning the WH?

Wow. Talk about not preparing for the future.

Bush supporters thought that also, they thought that giving Bush all that power was fine because we 'will never again have a Dem in the WH'. I had this conversation with so many of them. Big Surprise.

75% of Americns oppose the TPP. So yes, you are in the minority.

Hillary is unopposed right now. When other Democrats enter the race, those numbers will drop drastically.

And tell us, how is she going to attract the Independent vote, the left Indies, many of whom have left the Dem Party because of its swing to the Right?

Any polls on the Independent Vote, the largest voting bloc now in the country?

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. No I am not...whereever did you get that?

I am saying WE are in control of that....WE far outnumber the Republicans....when WE vote WE win because of that fact. It's arithmetic!


Now about just who is tempting fate here....

[Enthusiast]

70. We far outnumber the Republicans and that's why we shouldn't settle for such a candidate.

A corporatist.

[arely staircase]

75. settle?

Most Democrats strongly support Clinton and are getting more fired up ever day.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. Exactly....but they are desperately trying to make themselves believe otherwise!

and the operative words here...STRONGLY Support!

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. WE aren't....

you can pedal that bullshit someplace else. It don't fly with me. You have NO proof.

[Enthusiast]

69. Looks like you're surrounded.

[Cha]

12. "he never liked us .. he's

a plant " Oh the drama

[Fred Sanders]

13. Bwahhahaha! Obama does not love ME enough. He is a secret TPP corporation/bankster lover. And hates unions!

Obama also loves war and hates the middle class and has done nothing for anyone, ever....because of a trade deal I do not understand.....good enough for some??

In the end politics is about trust.....trust Obama or not....that choice is all that is necessary on TPP.

[WillTwain]

35. It is no longer a "secret." He is loud and defiant about it. He is a Larry Summers clone.

[Fred Sanders]

36. Nonsense.....I have 6 years of EVIDENCE of Obama's ACTIONS...you got some distorted words.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. and a narrative they just cannot let go of...even if the evidence to the contrary stacks to the sky!

hmmmmm what other group cannot let go of their preconceived narratives?

[cali]

2. Not me. If you'd just said living...

Not that that is remotely a good argument. It's not like the President negotiates a trade deal. And I doubt this would be different under a republican president. Trade agreements are negotiated by all the countries involved.

In any case, here is why this is so terrible. This is easy to read and understand and it's written by one of the most eminent economists in the world, nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz:

<snip>

The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP. What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation. This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the Opium Wars, in which Western powers successfully demanded that China keep itself open to opium because they saw it as vital in correcting what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.

Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims, the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well. American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government — getting rights as a “foreign” company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the government is strongest.

There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into corporate coffers: thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have to be compensated. That’s why we have a patent system. But the patent system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more available. I’ve written before about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily. Trade agreements provide even more opportunities for patent abuse.

The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.

In spite of all this, there are those who passionately support the TPP and agreements like it, including many economists. What makes this support possible is bogus, debunked economic theory, which has remained in circulation mostly because it serves the interests of the wealthiest.

<snip>

Today, there are 20 million Americans who would like a full-time job but can’t get one. Millions have stopped looking. So there is a real risk that individuals moved from low productivity-employment in a protected sector will end up zero-productivity members of the vast ranks of the unemployed. This hurts even those who keep their jobs, as higher unemployment puts downward pressure on wages.

We can argue over why our economy isn’t performing the way it’s supposed to — whether it’s because of a lack of aggregate demand, or because our banks, more interested in speculation and market manipulation than lending, are not providing adequate funds to small and medium-size enterprises. But whatever the reasons, the reality is that these trade agreements do risk increasing unemployment.

One of the reasons that we are in such bad shape is that we have mismanaged globalization. Our economic policies encourage the outsourcing of jobs: Goods produced abroad with cheap labor can be cheaply brought back into the United States. So American workers understand that they have to compete with those abroad, and their bargaining power is weakened. This is one of the reasons that the real median income of full-time male workers is lower than it was 40 years ago.

<snip>

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_r=0

[arely staircase]

6. perot et al predicted that NAFTA would destroy the US

it didn't. It has its problems but it wasn't the wonder or the curse either side said.

[cali]

14. was Perot a nobel prize winning economist?

And NAFTA has been more detrimental than not. In any case, you don't address anything that Stiglitz points out.

I've done a huge amount of research on the TPP. It is not an agreement that should be passed.

Where do you contest Stiglitz?

[arely staircase]

25. he is predicting the same kind of disaster that as perot

That is why I take such talk with a big grain of salt. My union opposes it and I am frankly ambivalent about it. My point is simply that when it comes to negotiating with other countries I trust Obama/Clinton/Dems and I don't trust Repubs. And before you say lesser of two evils, notice I said I trust one and not the other, meaning I am picking good over evil.

[cali]

29. OK

"such talk." he's one of the leading economists in the world- particularly on globalization. In many ways, NAFTA has been a disaster. Or more accurately one of the elements that makes up a pattern of disaster. If you choose not to approach issues intellectually, but emotionally, that's certainly your perogative. If you choose to employ a childish approach (trust in Mommy/Daddy), go for it. I find your lack of knowledge and curiosity, very, very sad.

And yes, I know magnitudes more about the TPP than you do, because I haven't relied on trusting Daddy. I've spent 100+ hours researching it.

I think you're better than a republican though.

[Enthusiast]

71. +1

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. I find this ... curious ...

If you choose not to approach issues intellectually, but emotionally, that's certainly your perogative. If you choose to employ a childish approach (trust in Mommy/Daddy), go for it. I find your lack of knowledge and curiosity, very, very sad.

You have the poster as childishly emotional and lacking knowledge and curiosity because he does not oppose something that your 100+ hours of study, still leaves you condemning drafts of negotiating positions (i.e., you are unable/unwilling to acknowledge that you have no idea what the final deal will look like).

What is that, if not non-intellectual, emotionalism?

[Thinkingabout]

59. I agree with you, I have reserved my opinion of TPP until the final draft has appeared.

In negotiations the story changes from day to day, proposals are put on the table, counter proposals are put on the table. I do not trust leaks.

[ND-Dem]

72. ...

Former President Bill Clinton claimed that NAFTA would create an “export boom to Mexico” that would create 200,000 jobs in two years and a million jobs in five years, “many more jobs than will be lost” due to rising imports... Fast forward 20 years and it’s clear that things didn’t work out as Clinton promised. NAFTA led to a flood of outsourcing and foreign direct investment in Mexico. U.S. imports from Mexico grew much more rapidly than exports, leading to growing trade deficits... Jobs making cars, electronics, and apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States... By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing.

Claims by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that NAFTA “trade” has created millions of jobs are based on disingenuous accounting, which counts only jobs gained by exports but ignores jobs lost due to growing imports. The U.S. economy has grown in the past 20 years despite NAFTA, not because of it. Worse yet, production workers’ wages have suffered in the United States. Likewise, workers in Mexico have not seen wage growth. Job losses and wage stagnation are NAFTA’s real legacy.

.

http://www.epi.org/publication/nafta-legacy-growing-us-trade-deficits-cost-682900-jobs/

[shenmue]

4. Oh yes

Can you picture what a Libertarian scumbag like Rand Paul would do to us?

It would make the junk bond collapse of the 80s look like a paper airplane fight.

[arely staircase]

7. or even a non-crazy like Bush

You think he would care how workers or the environment faired in a trade deal? Of course not. And Bush, though not crazy, is an enabler and exploiter of the crazy (see Schaivo)

[GeorgeGist]

8. DEEP

[Fred Sanders]

9. TRUST

[cali]

20. TRUST

We all have to decide who to trust on various issues. On Iran, I choose to trust the President.

On the TPP- which I know quite a bit about- I choose to trust Sherrod Brown, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren over the President and HRC.

I choose to trust my own eyes and intellectual capabilites.

I choose to trust nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who thinks this is a very, very bad agreement.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_r=0

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. No you don't "know quite a bit about"

that's ridiculous....

[cali]

90. actually, I do. Obviously I can't know what's in the 26 chapters

that haven't leaked, but I have read the three that have. I have read analysis and commentary. I have read about process.

I certainly know far fucking more than you ever will.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. NO you don't....you don't know any more than the rest of us....

it hasn't been released yet....

ridic

[cali]

94. I'm continually impressed by

how you just aren't very... astute.

I've spent many, many hours learning as much as I can about it.

that makes me very different from the likes of you.

[Autumn]

10. Hillary is not yet and may not be President and Obama will be out in 2016.

We don't have Democratic Presidents for life and odds are a republican will get in the White House at some point. I would much rather have transparency set as a precedent on on trade deals. So far the politicians who I have respect for and that know something about it are not happy with it. And what has been leaked is not something that I find reassuring.

Myself? if I'm going to get screwed over I would rather a republican screw me over than a Democrat.

[Fred Sanders]

11. Republicans wouldn't "screw you over", they will screw you and me into Jesus-dirt......bit different.

[Autumn]

17. Fine, I would rather have a republican screw you and me into Jesus-dirt than a Democrat

screwing you and me into Jesus-dirt. Is that better? Either way, screwed or screwed into Jesus-dirt we are still fucking screwed. I would rather not be screwed.

[JoePhilly]

56. Elect the GOP so they can screw us more quickly and thoroughly!!

[Autumn]

60. You have a nice day Joe. I won't lower myself to try and argue that silly ass, worthless remark.

If that's where you stand you stand nowhere. Bye

[Fred Sanders]

93. Since it is inevitable we must all be screwed equally by both equal parties.... let the experts do it, I agree!

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. whatever gets you through the night...

Hillary's prediction for today is at 76....while the closest competitor Jeb Bush is at 16!

[Autumn]

84. I get through the night just fine my dear friend.

As soon as another Democrat or Democrats start campaigning your excited numbers will not be so high. It's early yet.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. Oh really? Keep dreaming....the Democrats WANT HER!!!

Its just that simple....Your beloved Bernie's numbers? STILL in the toilet!

Jailbird Bob McDonnell and Sarah Palin score higher!

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president

[Autumn]

86. Bernie is not yet running.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. Neither are Sarah Palin or Bob McDonnell

and they have a score....and Bernie doesn't even make THAT draft!

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016president

[Autumn]

88. What a silly site Nilla.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Not silly at all...did you read who is doing it?

PredictWise is a research project which includes members of Microsoft Research...

Keep laughing....you will learn.

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination

Might want to check out the predictions for the Primary ^^^

Hillary Clinton 77+
Bernie Sanders 0.1


I like my odds....

[TheKentuckian]

15. It seems to me working class people and the environment get hosed no matter who is leading

this particular issue.

Maybe the modern President's from either party are different on "free trade" but I'm not clear on how other than Democrats mouth slightly different rhetoric before doing the exact same shit.

I'm also pretty sure I'd take TDR handling virtually any economic matter than either Clinton or Obama, he was the Trust Buster, they take propping up and creating Too Big to Fail entities as seemingly their first and most crucial duty.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Paine

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Thomas Paine

[seabeyond]

18. not when they are giving away my house. both in the unfairness, and literally....

taking my tax dollars and giving to corps and other countries cause we pay a bare minimum to survive.

it simply cannot be acceptable

[Fred Sanders]

19. What house are you referring to? TPP takes away your house and forces one to eat grubs in a mud hut..that is a new one!

[seabeyond]

22. its a continuing of corporate greed at my expense that takes away my lifestyle.

also, if other countries can prove that u.s. is discriminate cause of our laws and regulations, our tax money goes to the other country as compensation.

it is not just making it good for corps and other countries. it is at my expense.

[woo me with science]

24. Oh, such emphatic indignation.

19. What house are you referring to? TPP takes away your house and forces one to eat grubs in a mud hut..that is a new one!

Here are the results of Third Way/corporate rule already, right here in the United States of America.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6262949


[font size=3]Spare the insulting Third Way rhetoric. Obama and Hillary's predatory TPP will slash jobs and cut wages. [/font size]

[font size=3]Hillary and Obama's TPP will mean a pay cut for 90 percent of American workers.[/font size]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661805

The verdict is in: most U.S. workers would see wage losses as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping U.S. "free trade" deal under negotiation with 11 Pacific Rim countries. That's the conclusion of a report just released by the non-partisan Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).

One cannot simultaneously want the TPP and economic justice for the 99%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4318351

One cannot simultaneously want the TPP and economic justice for the 99% [View all]

They are violently mutually exclusive.

They absolutely know it's awful for the already-eviscerated 99%, otherwise they wouldn't hide behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy. They are sociopaths.

Wake up! We are being disembowled by sick, sick people. If we don't fight back, and quick, we will be dinner.

Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

[font size=3]No more Third Way corporatists and warmongers, period. End the corporate corruption of our democracy.

[font color=red]Reject Third Way propaganda: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5767160

[/font size] [/font color]


Going to the non-corporate talking point threads now. Americans don't have time for this nonsense.

[arely staircase]

26. none of what you posted seems designed to rationally win people to your point of view

It is all name calling and strawmen and true Scotsmen.

[cali]

31. your argument is every bit as weak.

trust daddy and mommy.

[arely staircase]

45. Instated that I trust them and I dont trust Repubs.

That isn't an argument. It is a fact.

[cali]

50. Congressional dems in both houses overwhelmingly oppose the TPA

which would enable the TPP to be passed. Without the TPA, no TPP. It's estimated that only 15 dems in the House support the President on the TPA. Whatever the number, it's a very small one. Republicans are the ones that support it. In the Senate that support is overwhelming. It's strong in the House.

It appears you do trust repubs if it means they support the president.

It appears that if the President said we need to nuke some country, you'd trust him on that.

I think that mindset is dangerous and frightening.

The republicans support him. Dems do not. Those are the real facts. What you claim as facts are opinion. Beliefs and opinions aren't facts. That you hold certain beliefs is a fact, but your beliefs are inconsistent

[arely staircase]

74. And I am ambivalant about it

I don't know where you got off on the nuking countries strangeness. And why does it bother you when someone won't join you in your daily 25 hours of Obama hate?

[treestar]

55. No that's not what it is

In the end we have to trust someone. Or we'd have to hide out with daddy and mommy for real. And then trust them.

We send kids to school and thereby trust the teachers to teach them. Maybe you're the kind who calls and bugs the teachers, etc. and micromanages.

Do you go to the cockpit to make sure the pilot is flying properly? How do you supervise your own surgery?

The government is big now and enforces thousands of laws. You are trusting many unknown people with that.

There's no way you can negotiate a trade agreement alone on behalf of this country. And I'm afraid no way we can isolate ourselves as a nation without that being the true economic disaster.

[Fred Sanders]

37. Well, that picture of some slum has convinced me! Obama wants Americans to live in mud huts!

[arely staircase]

46. Obamavilles

While he and the Clintons look down from those skyscrapers and decide which babies they want to eat.

[Hoyt]

34. Haven't people taken a "pay cut" without the TPP since the 60s?

It will continue to be cut, or worse, if we don't expand trade outside the USA.

Still, despite all that, our median wage is tops with the exception of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg and Australia.

[Fred Sanders]

39. The middle class has already been robbed and suffered while the wealthy runaway with the loot! No TPP? Interesting.

The Outrage is being massively pointed in the wrong direction.

[treestar]

58. And there is no proof of this lowering of wages

In fact our problem is developing countries where people can afford to work for less. Or to them, it's an improvement. So that's happening in reality. What they want to do about it is stop that development, so we can keep the jobs and keep things the way they were. That's not going to happen. The TPP may well mitigate some of that - that would be the purpose.

[paulbibeau]

28. Yeah. Fuck Lincoln!

[arely staircase]

48. Yes I would pick Obama over Lincoln to negotiate a 21st C trade deal nt

[hughee99]

30. I wouldn't trusts any of them if they told me

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

They wanted to make some deal an official treaty before they'd let everyone have a good look at what's in it.

More a commentary on the TPP than the Iran negotiations.

[Hoyt]

32. Definitely.

[polichick]

33. So the choices are still bad or worse?

[ucrdem]

40. Bad, worse, or better.

Bad = Current arrangement whereby WalMart and others purvey cheaply made goods that deprive US workers of jobs;

Worse = Whatever trade deal Jeb might come up with;

Better = Obama's deal, which makes a serious effort at least to establish labor and environmental standards, and in all 12 signatory countries, not just the US.

Incidentally even with fast track there will be plenty of time to scrutinize the final draft before it's voted on or signed:

The bill would make any final trade agreement open to public comment for 60 days before the president signs it, and up to four months before Congress votes.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/business/obama-trade-legislation-fast-track-authority-trans-pacific-partnership.html?referrer=

[polichick]

57. I don't trust corporate Dems to put people or planet ahead of corp. profits.

[cascadiance]

61. Best should be a choice! - pull OUT of NAFTA and IGNORE TPP!

And restore our ability to have tariffs and in the course of doing so get rid of our trade deficit and the resulting increasing debt, loss of assets owned by American interests and loss of American jobs that we used to have before Reagan started this so-called "free trade" nightmare that both Republicans and corporate owned Democrats have embraced since then that have TRASHED the middle class and our economy and have globalized labor and environmental standards at the bottoms internationally that corporations race to under these treaties that enable them to do so and in the process also are able to overturn our laws and steal our nation's sovereignty from us!

Unfortunately we likely won't get this choice unless we elect a populist like Warren or Sanders!

[ucrdem]

64. Possibly but I don't think that option is available. We've been heading down this road since WWII.

That's 70 years of offshoring, outsourcing, and industrial neo-colonialism that can't be reversed by one treaty. Heck if it were up to the GOP we'd basically shut down domestic industrial production altogether and rely wholly on gunboat diplomacy to supply our manufactured goods. Remember Mitt's solution? Let Detroit go bankrupt? Well, Obama bailed out Detroit, and has done a lot more to prop up US manufacturing. TPP can't undo 70 years of neoliberalism but it can make a bad situation better.

[arely staircase]

49. no, between trustrorthy and not. nt

[polichick]

53. I don't trust Obama or Clinton on this - so it's still bad or worse...

Not good enough - the people deserve better.

[rock]

41. Ditto. Especially a mob of then

Each trying to get his piece of the pie.

[mopinko]

42. yeah. i am going to wait for the actual agreement to come out.

i agree w his stance that if we do not act we end up with china making the rules.
it may be a bad agreement, it may be a good one. i dont know yet.

but i do know that the fact that obama is the one negotiating it means it will be a better one that what china and japan would like to see.

there are a lot of our products that are banned in some countries for purely political reasons. i would like to see that stop.

[colsohlibgal]

43. Wow

Being better than awful does not= good. That seems to be the thrust here - kind of like what Britney Spears said, just blindly trust them.

I bought into Obama's quite liberal talk in 2008 and enthusiastically voted for him. By 2012 I voted against Romney, not for Obama.

Once he got in Obama went straight to the right. Rahm Emmanuel, Summers, Geithner. Summers and Geithner are classic in and out of Wall Street operators, while in government they make it so they can make oodles of money when they go back to Goldman or wherever. I suggest watching a video that ran on PBS, "The Warning", to see what Wall Street trolls those 2 were and how it crashed the economy. I also suggest watching "Inside Job".

Obama could have gone populist but went with Big Money. But as seem here, his apologists refuse to see any of this.

[cali]

44. You guys will ignore this, but why is it that congressional repubs support this and

and congressional democrats overwhelmingly reject it?

How come the "evil" ones are so supportive and the good guys are so strongly opposed?

[Autumn]

47. Because Obama is pushing for it.

That makes it good.

[treestar]

51. Very true. And even Republicans have no motive to

give everything to the 1%. They are not in some big conspiracy to destroy us all. That's what you'd think from some of these comments.

[liberal_at_heart]

62. either way the American worker gets screwed. Bye bye middle class.

[AgingAmerican]

66. The so called 'deal' he is 'negotiating'

Is championed by the GOP and loathed by the Democrats. Please tell me the difference between Obama fulfilling a GOP wet dream and the GOP doing it?

The difference is, when Obama does it, they get things they would have never, ever dared to attempt getting themselves because it was political suicide.

For example, almost everything in the sequester deal was a long standing GOP wet dream. Do you mean to tell me that Obama didn't notice that going into it? Did he really believe they were 'too horrible to let stand'? Notice zero effort to undo the sequester bullshit by Obama? Explain how or why he 'forgot' about it?

Nothing to see here folks, move along now.

[Scuba]

73. Hey, if we're going to have a trade deal the fucks over the 99% and tosses our democracy ...

... onto a shitpile, shouldn't we at least have Republicans to blame it on?

[PeteSelman]

76. Why? The result is the same.

America's workers get screwed again, rich assholes get richer and no one ever gets held accountable for anything.

[cali]

92. right. the same people would be negotiating them.

it's an illusion to think they'd be different in any significant way

[Octafish]

77. Lots o' Buy Partisanship. NAFTA ''negotiations'' started under Ronald Raygun. TPP under GW Bush.

NAFTA signed into law by GHW Bush. Took effect under WJ Clinton.

TPP may be signed into law by BH Obama. May take effect under a Bush or a Clinton, coincidentally, of course.

SOURCE: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta