Why Obama is happy to fight Elizabeth Warren on the trade deal (Yahoo! article)

[YoungDemCA]

This past week, as I had just reminded Obama, Warren launched her heaviest torpedo yet against the trade deal, alleging that some future president might use it as an excuse to undo the reregulation of Wall Street that Obama signed into law in 2010. In fact, as the White House quickly pointed out, language in the pact would expressly prevent that unless Congress voted to allow it.

Three days after that broadside, when we sat down at Nike’s headquarters outside Portland, Ore., Obama still seemed unusually irritated.

“Think about the logic of that, right?” he went on. “The notion that I had this massive fight with Wall Street to make sure that we don’t repeat what happened in 2007, 2008. And then I sign a provision that would unravel it?

“I’d have to be pretty stupid,” Obama said, laughing. “This is pure speculation. She and I both taught law school, and you know, one of the things you do as a law professor is you spin out hypotheticals. And this is all hypothetical, speculative.”
Obama wasn’t through. He wanted me to know, in pointed terms, that for all the talk about her populist convictions, Warren had a personal brand she was trying to promote, too.


“The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else,” he said. “And you know, she’s got a voice that she wants to get out there. And I understand that. And on most issues, she and I deeply agree. On this one, though, her arguments don’t stand the test of fact and scrutiny.”

What’s mostly going on here, though, is that frustrated liberals see in the Asian trade deal an opportunity to draw the line on globalization, period. No one thinks this deal is going to be the ruin of American workers, when all is said and done. What they think is that there has to be a moment when industry loses and the country finally turns its attention to the things you can do for workers, like raising the minimum wage (a more than reasonable suggestion) and relaxing rules that make organizing more difficult.

Taking a stand against the trade pact is really just a way of taking a stand against 30-plus years of policies that favored business over everyone else.

And this is what so frustrates Obama, to the point where he would come to make his stand at the headquarters of a company reviled by labor, almost as a provocation. Obama, as his detractors have often pointed out, is a study in cool-blooded analysis and professorial debate; whatever his gift of oratory, his real passion is for the triumph of reason over histrionics.

So you can see how it would annoy Obama no end that no matter how many mitigating facts and figures he throws at the opponents in his own party, their determination to sink the deal only intensifies. What they really want, it seems to him, isn’t a better trade deal, but rather a time machine that can transport us all back to the moment before globalization began.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-obama-is-happy-to-fight-elizabeth-warren-on-118537612596.html

[arcane1]

1. If Warren's concerns are "speculative", doesn't that word also apply to Obama's assurances? n/t

[ananda]

2. Obama gets so much wrong on this issue.

Warren is NOT just another politician on this issue.

She is the human voice that sees the problems with it.

[cali]

3. wow, what crap

President Obama's massive fight with Wall Street? what a joke.

The steaming pile of shit that is this article is almost beyond belief.

And President Obama is full of it.

[YoungDemCA]

4. If you think Wall Street wanted Dodd-Frank...

...then you're the one who is 'full of it."

[cali]

6. Obama largely let wall street off the hook

And he's been far less than honest about the tpp.

[MaggieD]

21. What did you want him to do instead?

Not being argumentative- just curious.

[think]

46. To be like 2007 candidate Obama speaking here?:

[MaggieD]

50. I'm referring to her comment about...

Letting Wall st "off the hook."

[Tommy2Tone]

106. Bernie can't win

So there is that.

[cali]

115. so what, dear? And I've never ever said he could.

[paleotn]

22. Dodd - Frank?

Wall Street sounded just like brar rabbit and the briar patch.

[Enthusiast]

109. +1 a whole bunch!

[BainsBane]

5. I'd like to see the deal so we can decide for ourselves

I don't put much stock in the word of any politician.

[MaggieD]

14. IMO, there is more than enough info currently available....

.... to make a decision to be for or against it. I am pretty much against it, because I am skeptical that many of the provisions that make it a good deal for the US can or will be enforced with the prospective trade partner nations.

I do take his point about the knee jerk reaction of some though. I think the vast majority of people giving it a thumbs down have not even availed themselves of the info that IS available. So he is probably correct on that point.

This is a difficult subject from a pro versus con point of view. I think reasonable people (Warren, Obama, Sanders, etc.) can certainly disagree on the issue with no nefarious motives.

[True Blue Door]

7. This makes a valid point.

There's a difference between fighting for a better trade deal, and simply fighting to oppose any trade deal on the basis of rejecting the entire premise. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be more prevalent.

The former is rational progressive politics, the latter is based on defeatist cynicism and paranoia. History has been cruel on the subject, but that doesn't change the intellectual bankruptcy of simply wanting to throw monkey wrenches into globalism instead of seeking practical improvements.

Attempts to deal with economic problems through trade restrictions were part of Herbert Hoover's attempted solution to the Depression, and it just doesn't work like that. You can't build backwards.

And what's more important is that you can't force other countries to accept provisions that don't serve them politically in any way. Why in the hell would a poor country sign a trade deal with a rich country that protects jobs in the rich country at their expense? Why would they choose that over a more advantageous deal with, say, China?

One also has to be aware that the deal occurs within the context of the geopolitical "pivot to Asia", and attempts to contain Chinese ambitions. That means other countries around the Pacific will be given preferential trade treatment.

[YoungDemCA]

8. Thanks for providing the historical and geopolitical context

I agree with your points.

[bvar22]

51. Nobody wants to fight for a better Trade Deal???? BS

Dennis Kucinich fought for better "Trade Deals" all the time.
In fact, it was a plank in his platform.


1)Withdraw from all current "Free Trade" Deals.

2)Re-negotiate trade deals with each individual country that protects Labor, Human Rights. and the Environment.

[True Blue Door]

56. That seems like quite a cart and horse reversal.

Withdrawing from a trade regimen does not magically reinstate the economy that existed before it. In fact, it doesn't necessarily do that at all, or at least not within a timely way that would help workers. That approach is practically Hooverism.

Negotiating better deals has to happen on top of the present, not as part of some reckless bulldozing of existing global trade.

If Kucinich advocates just taking a wrecking ball to the global economy as a prelude to better systems, then he's just deliberately making himself irrelevant.

[truedelphi]

74. I don't think you understand what is happening.

I hardly think there would be a wrecking ball - hardly.

We now have even customer service jobs in third world nations. Try to get information on your student loan, and you' re talking to someone speaking pigdin English, and this is why we no longer have a customer base of middle class Americans.

[True Blue Door]

77. If that's the case, how would relocating the focus of trade from China to SE Asian nations

make that any worse? And how would preventing that change in focus improve the situation?

China wields much more disproportionate economic power over the United States than any of these countries in the TPP would.

[DCBob]

82. Well said.

[fredamae]

9. Fine, then doesn't the burden of

proof lay with the person making solid arguments and claims of gross misunderstanding against the opponent? Show us all the terms of TPA and the TPP deal Before the vote is taken.

Prove Warren and everyone else who disagrees....Wrong.

[okaawhatever]

16. All the terms of the TPA & TPP will be shown before the vote. At least 60 days before the vote. Also

congresspeople can go and read what they have negotiated so far.

Releasing anything to the American people before it's finalized is irresponsible IMHO. It leaves a lot of room for bait-and-switch.

[fredamae]

18. Thx..I understood

or rather mis-understood on that point.

As it is, I understand congress can go in there, no cameras, no aides, no paper/pen...and they cannot divulge what they reviewed. And yes, I couldn't agree more.

[truedelphi]

91. But, But, but, say the

Trolls supporting the TPP, then the President's ability to negotiate a good treaty for us Americans would be lost forever.

[MaggieD]

10. Well he might have a point with this statement....

"What they really want, it seems to him, isn’t a better trade deal, but rather a time machine that can transport us all back to the moment before globalization began."

I can see why he might think that. Unfortunately that is impossible.

[seabeyond]

11. interesting argument. thanks. nt

[yallerdawg]

12. Why would Obama take up this fight?

From article:

"...whatever his gift of oratory, his real passion is for the triumph of reason over histrionics."

"If Obama can’t get fast-track authority through Congress, he won’t have much chance at negotiating a final deal. But if he can, then he might well be able to claim one last, major legislative victory — and the only one in his presidency with broad, bipartisan support. And not only that, but a victory that gets back to the promise inherent in his first presidential campaign — the promise to adapt American liberalism to the economic realities of the 21st century, without simply bowing before capital or raging against it."

He might need his anger translator soon! Kick ass, Obama!

[okaawhatever]

17. And it seems he has accomplished much of the "adapt American liberalism to the

economic realities of the 21st century". There are a lot of labor protections, wage protections and environmental protections. Of course, this agreement is with other countries like Canada and New Zealand who are supportive of those ideas already.

The underlyng goal here is to force China to adopt the standards that other countries produce goods by. We will never be able to compete with China even if their wages are similar to ours. They don't recognize patents or intellectual property nor do they have the cost of environmental regulations added to their bottom line. We can either lower our standards to compete or try and raise theirs.

[Doctor_J]

32. except that he is far more conservative than Reagan

When he's done "kicking ass", which asses do you think are going to be sore?

[Art_from_Ark]

39. It won't be corporate or Wall Street asses,

that's for sure.

[yallerdawg]

43. More conservative than Reagan.

Welcome to the internet!

[YoungDemCA]

69. Yes, the first black President-a Democrat-is "far more conservative" than Ronald fucking Reagan

[Number23]

80. Starting to get why so many Democrats have grabbed their keys and high tailed it out of here?

[Bobbie Jo]

94. Ridiculous.

[neverforget]

13. Obama is a politician just like Warren. The fact that the

US Chamber of Commerce is for it, tells me a lot about what's in it. When's the last time they were for anything that helped American workers?

[MaggieD]

15. You could learn more about it than that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

[neverforget]

19. My union is against it. Environmental groups are against it.

And a lot of Democrats are against it. "This time will be different because...." is a bunch of baloney.

[MaggieD]

20. Well at least you're not claiming...

It's super secret as an excuse for why you don't know what's in it. Props for that!

[neverforget]

24. Why would I support something sight unseen?

If this turns out to be the progressive trade deal Obama claims, then I'll change my mind. I seriously doubt Republicans and the Chamber would support something "progressive " though.

[MaggieD]

27. Why would you be against something sight unseen?

I'm not saying you should support it or not support. I'm just saying you could be informed about it if you wanted to be.

[neverforget]

33. How can you be informed on something secret?

My default position is no because of the history of past trade deals and those supporting it.

[MaggieD]

34. I gave you a link with great detail

And you declined to even consider informing yourself. So even if it was secret why would you care? You don't care to know.

And if it's secret how does your Union know what's in it?

Thanks for helping me make my point.

[neverforget]

38. you're funny. all those Congress people who say it's secret

and can't talk about it, are full of it? They have to go into a room and can't take any notes or anything to read it. Or that it has to be leaked in order to read it mean anything?

How are you for it if you don't know what is in it?

[Hoyt]

96. Warren talks about it all the time, but she's misinterpreted a lot of things.

[neverforget]

97. proof?

[Marr]

107. Right, but Hoyt of the presitigious "Internet" has interpreted it correctly. /nt

[Hoyt]

108. I know when she says you won't know what the TPP says for 4 years, she's either misinformed or

playing to people too gullible/obtuse to know the difference.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Indeed! He doesn't even seem to know

that Republicans are for it too!

Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, and Obama. What could go wrong?

Silly Proles, so easily frightened.

[MaggieD]

64. Knowing why you're against something is...

... A big plus! Don't you think?

For instance people that understand the issue can explain why they are against it. Take me, for example. I'm against because I can't see evidence that trade pact regulations meant to level the playing field have been enforceable in trade pact partner countries. No matter how well intentioned they may be on our part.

But I also know the TPP is going forward at some point with or without our involvement. Without our involvement China writes the rules. And that could screw American workers just as much if not more.

So, while I'm against it I don't automatically assume Obama is a corporate stooge. I hope you didn't mind the serious response.

[YoungDemCA]

65. The Tea Party is against it, though

For many of the same reasons you are.

Silly "proles", indeed.

[Enthusiast]

111. A big plus one!

Yeah, what could go wrong....

[Hoyt]

95. Well, Tbaggers seem to share your view. Using your logic, what should that tell you?

[Enthusiast]

110. Fact.

[Octafish]

23. ''I had this massive fight with Wall Street.''

Here's a reminder of what happened:

How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform

It's bad enough that the banks strangled the Dodd-Frank law. Even worse is the way they did it - with a big assist from Congress and the White House.

by: Matt Taibbi
Rolling Stone

EXCERPT...

Two years later, Dodd-Frank is groaning on its deathbed. The giant reform bill turned out to be like the fish reeled in by Hemingway's Old Man – no sooner caught than set upon by sharks that strip it to nothing long before it ever reaches the shore. In a furious below-the-radar effort at gutting the law – roundly despised by Washington's Wall Street paymasters – a troop of water-carrying Eric Cantor Republicans are speeding nine separate bills through the House, all designed to roll back the few genuinely toothy portions left in Dodd-Frank. With the Quislingian covert assistance of Democrats, both in Congress and in the White House, those bills could pass through the House and the Senate with little or no debate, with simple floor votes – by a process usually reserved for things like the renaming of post offices or a nonbinding resolution celebrating Amelia Earhart's birthday.

SNIP...

Then, behind the closed doors of Congress, Wall Street lobbyists and their allies got to work. Though many of the new regulatory concepts survived in the final bill, most of them wound up whittled down to such an extreme degree that they were barely recognizable in the end. Over the course of a ferocious year of negotiations in the House and the Senate, the rules on swaps were riddled with loopholes: One initially promising rule preventing federally insured banks from trading in risky derivatives ultimately ended up exempting a huge chunk of the swaps market from the new law. The Volcker Rule banning proprietary gambling survived, but not before getting its brains beaten out in last-minute conference negotiations; Wall Street first won broad exemptions for mutual funds, insurers and trusts, and then, with the aid of both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, managed to secure a lunatic and arbitrary numerical exemption that allows banks to gamble up to three percent of their "Tier 1" capital, a number that for big banks stretches to the billions.

SNIP...

The nine bills to gut Dodd-Frank could also receive a JOBS Act-style welcome when they reach the Senate. There are only two Senate committees with the jurisdiction to tackle these bills, and neither appears to be planning to take a whack at any of the new measures. The Agriculture Committee, which oversees the CFTC, has been busy dealing with a huge farm bill. The Banking Committee, which oversees the SEC, is dominated by Democrats who wouldn't mind at all if Dodd-Frank had both its legs broken, including Chuck Schumer of New York and Mark Warner of Virginia. What's more, the committee's understated chairman, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, seems weirdly willing to let pretty much anything touching the financial world roll straight to a vote without his changing a comma – a sharp contrast to the days when fist-shaking politcal Godhead Chris Dodd ran the committee.

SNIP...

That means all those thousands of hours of debate and fierce negotiation spent hammering out Dodd-Frank two years ago might now go up in smoke in a matter of a few quiet minutes. Of the big-ticket items that were actually passed two years ago, the derivatives reforms have been completely gutted by loopholes, the Volcker Rule has been delayed for two years, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may be thrust under the budgetary control of Congress, which is determined to destroy it. And much of this is taking place with the assent of Democrats, for a very simple reason: because the name of the game isn't cleaning up Wall Street, it's cleaning out Wall Street – throwing a "yes" vote at a bank-approved bill to get them to pony up in an election year. "All this is aimed at the financial services industry," admits one senior Democratic congressional aide. "It's to let them know, 'Hey, you're OK, we're not going to destroy your business – and give us your money, because we're trying to raise it for an election.'"

CONTINUED...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-wall-street-killed-financial-reform-20120510?print=true

Signed,

^F^R^U^S^T^R^A^T^E^D ^L^I^B^E^R^A^L

[Doctor_J]

30. yeah I caught that too

I think his staff has convinced him that he's not a wall street water carrier. Or maybe he's just reading the cue cards

[Octafish]

86. ''My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.''

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/04/obama-to-banker/

It's the weirdest thing. Why wouldn't the President want to arrest the lawbreakers?

[Enthusiast]

112. +1 an entire shit load.

[Doctor_J]

25. He has almost no credibility left, after 6 years of selling out liberals on every issue

[MaggieD]

28. He's no longer pure enough for the purists?

[YoungDemCA]

68. Really? Who are these "liberals"?

Outside of DU and other online bubbles.

Far as I can tell, Obama remains popular among liberal, Democratic-voting America.

[winter is coming]

26. "Triumph of reason over histrionics"?

There's nothing "histrionic" about saying the TPP will hurt American workers.

[MaggieD]

29. So, should we close trade with Asian countries?

[winter is coming]

31. TPP or nothing at all aren't our only options.

Anytime someone presents me with a false choice, I know they're peddling bullshit.

[MaggieD]

36. You realize TPP is happening...

... whether the U.S. signs on or not, right?

[truedelphi]

75. I much agree, with your points about

Knowing when your e not dealing with someone speaking truth, and I also agree with you about the TPP.

I keep wondering why it is that on the one hand, supposedly the Dem Party is all concerned about Climate Change, but on the other hand, the Centrists running the Party are promoting a deal that will put even more jobs in third world countries that lack the most basic regulations to protect the atmosphere, the land and the water? WTF? So are Centrists for stopping Climate Change or not?

[cali]

41. seriously?

We have trade agreements already with over half of the tpp nations. We trade extensively with all eleven of them, and tariffs are historically low.

[MaggieD]

44. Of course we do

But keep in mind the TPP is going forward with or without our involvement. Without us China will write the rules. So unless you think we should close off Asian markets it's still going to fuck workers. That's just reality.

[truedelphi]

76. And why is it good that tariffs are low?

When we had sensible tariffs in place, we also had a thriving middle class.

[Enthusiast]

113. +1 a whole bunch!

[AZ Progressive]

35. Obama should just shut up unless he doesn't care anymore for exposing who he really is

not that that's a bad thing...

[ucrdem]

40. He's a liberal, trade is liberal.

That shouldn't come as a surprise.

[cali]

45. trade can be liberal. it can be oppressive

It can even be both at the same time. You want to reduce it to banal simplicity, go for it.

[ucrdem]

48. Right, it needs to be regulated,

preferably by a Democratic administration, hence TPP. Sanders and Warren are basically wrecking this deal for personal gain and I'm beginning to suspect their motives.

[MaggieD]

52. And that's one of the points for TPP

If we drop out China will write the rules instead. Difficult issue.

[truedelphi]

101. ANd this would affect the malingering mdidle class exactly how?

IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE WENT BACK TO A SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE LIVING INSIDE THE USA WERE ABLE TO WORK AT DECENT JOBS, RATHER THAN THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY.

As far as I am concerned, let the other nations have the TPP, and let us go back to a place where people could make a living without so much worry about jobs no longer existing.

Re-instate the tariff system, and bring back the jobs.

[MaggieD]

103. That's not the way it works

NOT signing the TPP isn't going to accomplish that, sadly.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. Neo-liberal. Much different. nt

[ucrdem]

62. Could be but just tossing the word out doesn't change anything. nt

[RiverLover]

67. Well, on the other hand, if you know what "Neoliberal" means, it changes everything.

Neoliberalism[1] is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time.[2]

Since the 1980s it is a term used primarily by critics in reference to the resurgence of ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, whose advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[3] The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen by some academics as the root of financialization with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 seen as one of the ultimate results.[11][12][13][14][15]

wiki

[ucrdem]

70. In your mind sure. But I can't read your mind. nt

[YoungDemCA]

63. +1.

Lots of reactionary comments in this thread (and basically every thread whenever the subject of trade comets up).

[ucrdem]

37. If they're making bank on playing reactionary isolationists, they're going to keep it up.

Reason won't work because they're not honest brokers at this point. So here's my advice:

?t=32s

[cali]

47. this has jackrabbit to do with isolationism

And you clearly know nothing about it

[ucrdem]

49. Thanks for that compelling counterargument. nt

[MaggieD]

53. Actually it has everything to do with isolationism

[ucrdem]

58. In the absence of a substantial alternative proposal, I agree.

Basically they're playing the xenophobia card and getting props for being "liberal" which is seriously WTF. Alan Grayson is apparently thumping a Warren Buffet trade deal which makes me wonder what's really going on here.

[YoungDemCA]

66. This is all about xenophobia, yes - as well as being reactionary

Globalization is not merely inevitable, it has already happened. They're several decades too late.

Attempting to reverse globalization is like attempting to go back to the days before *insert scientific /technological/economic advance here".

[MaggieD]

72. That's the thing - the ship has sailed

Long time ago. We live in a global economy. There's no going back.

I don't claim to know the answers. But I know it's a difficult issue, and not black and white at all.

[cali]

116. no, that's bullshit.

It has to do with forging trade agreements that don't almost solely benefit corporate interests. You don't seem to know that tariffs, for example are historically low. You claimed to know so much about currency manipulation and the tpp and got it all wrong. There are not a lot of trade barriers in place at this point in time, and many of those are related to environmental and health concerns.

[MaggieD]

117. The problem is not that...

... FTAs don't include that. It's that they aren't enforceable. On the other hand no agreement is even less enforceable. Sucks either way.

[cali]

118. under current structures, that is substantially (although not wholly) true.

[CharlotteVale]

42. He compared her to Sarah Palin.

He couldn't make his contempt for her and those of us who oppose the TPP any more clear. He doesn't have to pretend any more, so he isn't.

[diabeticman]

55. I object to President Obama saying that Senator Warren is "a Politician like everyone else"

She is the 21 century Mr. Smith (as in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.)

[MaggieD]

73. Mr. Smith was fictional character

[truedelphi]

78. But FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and

Wellstone were very real people.

I could even throw Eisenhower into the mix - his stance on the nation having jobs to create community colleges, community hospitals and interstate highways put the middle class to work, and gave us a lot of prosperity.

None of which has come our way since we embarked on this Cra Cra Trade Act philosophy of the Democratic Party sellouts.

[MaggieD]

88. I think you are idealizing them...

Maybe not Wellstone, but he wasn't president. They all had their faults. FDR putting Japanese Americans in prison camps. Kennedy being pretty cowardly on civil rights., etc.

[TM99]

92. Idealizing?

Says the poster who idealizes Clinton and Obama.

[MaggieD]

93. Nope

I don't hold any politician out to be an infallible Demi-God. In fact I thought it was silly when DUers were giving Obama the Warren/Sanders treatment back in 2007.

[TM99]

98. Your posts on Clinton

betray you, I am afraid.

[MaggieD]

99. No they don't

[TM99]

100. Yes, actually they do.

You broker no criticism of her or her policies. You will distort facts about her record or simply avoid responses that are counter to your beliefs in order to maintain that personally held illusion.

Claim otherwise all you want. It is obvious to those of us paying attention.

[truedelphi]

105. i will leave it to you to pay closer attention to MaggieD.

I think if I did so, what is left of my grey matter would implode!

[diabeticman]

81. BUT it inspired people to believe that the words "Of the People by the people". We need that hope

Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are our real life Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Pitt Jolie movie was ment

[MannyGoldstein]

57. Icarus Obama has picked a fight with the wrong person.

This will not go well for him.

[YoungDemCA]

60. And you accuse Obama supporters of hero worship!

[ucrdem]

71. LOL.

Wonder Woman vs Superman, film at eleven

[JEB]

61. Ok. One more hand. I'm sure I'll win this time.

[tk2kewl]

79. l vote for the time machine

just because "trade pacts" legalized environmental and economic destruction on a global scale for the benefit of corporarations and their wealthiest investors doesn't mean we have to continue it

[MaggieD]

84. Be nice if we had...

.... a time machine, wouldn't it? But we don't.

[tk2kewl]

85. Can always change course though

Bad ideas don't need to become the new normal

[MaggieD]

87. Well Obama is right that....

... we live in a global economy. Nothing to be done about that. Trade pacts or not we have to compete with low paid workers around the globe.

[tk2kewl]

89. Write trade laws thar require a living wage and protect workers, places and the environment.

People before profit.

[MaggieD]

90. That's the idea

...the problem is they never really turn out to be enforceable.

[truedelphi]

102. Hear! Hear! n/t

[GoneFishin]

83. What a pile of spinning horseshit.

[Recursion]

104. I like the point that TPP is "signalling" mostly, like Keystone XL

I remember noticing at least on Facebook that nobody in my friends list who vocally oppose either one know that:

1. TPP is replacing existing free-trade treaties with the individual countries, and
2. Neither China nor India are involved, and
3. The Keystone XL proposal would have shortened an existing pipeline.

Not that either of those mean TPP or Keystone XL are good, or that people should support them. Just that the opposition is really about something other than the actual thing at hand.

[Larkspur]

114. Obama embarrased himself and did a disservice to the office of the Presidency

by making his public pitch for TPP and TPA at the Nike plant in Oregon.

Nike is the poster-corporation of what is wrong with free trade.

With or without TPP, China will write the rules via currency manipulation.