After Attacking Warren, Obama Having Trouble Selling TPP to Fellow Dems

[Jackpine Radical]

After Attacking Warren, Obama Having Trouble Selling TPP to Fellow Dems
By Mike Lillis and Jordan Fabian, The Hill
15 May 15

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/30179-after-attacking-warren-obama-having-trouble-selling-tpp-to-fellow-dems

President Obama's sharp rebuke of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) over his ambitious trade agenda is backfiring in the House, where the personal attacks are alienating the same Democrats the president is courting for votes.

…

The tough tenor was designed to rally the backing of more Democrats, particularly in the House, where GOP leaders are struggling to find the 217 votes needed to pass the fast-track bill aimed at facilitating those pacts.

Instead, Obama's rhetoric — he said his critics were "just wrong" in an interview with Yahoo published Saturday — seems to have exacerbated tensions between Democrats and the White House, which could make it tougher to move one of the president's top legislative priorities through Congress this year. "You and I can disagree about policy, but I can't call you a bad person or impugn your motives or anything else — except at great risk," Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.), a liberal Democrat who's undecided but leaning against the trade bill, said Wednesday.

"Civility in this business is important, because tomorrow I have to work with you, tomorrow I may need you badly," he added. "A lot of people are standing around saying, 'You know something, this is getting to be a personal thing, and that's not the way we want to go here.' ... He went quite a ways with her and I think probably he won't go that far again."

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. Notice it is the Democratic party fighting for what is right. Yes some are on the wrong

side, but I contend Obama is doing what he thinks is necessary given what he knows the future holds.

But at the same time good, strong Democrats are fighting against him.

Dont see any fucking cons fighting for us, do you?

not you, but you know what I mean


Obama being so adamant has to tell us something. Something we dont want to hear.

That we do not have the political will to do what we must, tariffs and investment at home, so we better get on board and be willing to work for $5 an hour instead of nothing.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Republicans are fighting for Obama on this. nt

[Vincardog]

3. Correction Obama is fighting for the Republican's owners on this.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

4. So you completely missed the point, I see

[Jackpine Radical]

35. Let me stick my nose in here.

I think you're basically saying that you oppose TPP/TPA, along with many Democrats in Congress, but you think that Obama has what he considers to be good & valid (rather than cynical and self-serving) reasons behind his actions. For example, given the current environment as it is dominated by Big Money and their Republican lackeys, maybe he's trying to salvage some scraps for us from the rapacious forces of the other side.

I have never particularly indulged in serious speculation about Obama's motives, and don't really care, but I expect that you're right in that he sees himself as advancing a cause other than his own self interest.

[erronis]

47. But why can't he be a little upfront for these motives?

He is so good at innuendo and those pregnant pauses that say more than words can. I believe most of us would feel much more comfortable if he could send a signal that he knows what he's doing, instead of belittling those that question him.

[Jackpine Radical]

48. I'm in no position to answer such a question.

[Volaris]

51. THIS.

If the President that I voted for twice really does thing this deal is the best way to salvage an even worse future, then I want him to just come the fuck out and say that.
I still might not agree, (and it will drive the narrative that if this IS the best we can hope for, we have bigger problems than we have have been led to believe), but at least he would get credit for the attempt.
This what he's doing strikes me as CYNICAL hippie-bashing..and for the most part, I've kept my mouth shut until I felt I had given the matter it's internal Due Dialouge.
my opinion is this...Obamas attempting to do with a trade deal what was done with the banking crisis:
put the planes back in the air, after a fatal crash (what Timmy and Hank had spent their careers practicing for). What he has the actual power to be doing, is advocating for national high speed rail.

[cadaverdog]

33. Which is more than a little ironic since as recently as last year

Republicans were referring to the TPP as "Obamatrade." But that was before the corporations and the Chamber of Commerce told them to get in line, and like the good little lemmings they are, they suddenly liked the TPP.

(They actually had a pretty good argument back then; they saw the TPP and FAST TRACK as an over reach of presidential power which they were strictly against.)

[Volaris]

49. "...which they were strictly against."

Only because it's not their guy sitting in the Big Chair. When it has been their guy in the past, they couldn't have given any less of a Fuck about the ambitions of an over-reaching and imperial Executive Branch.

[orpupilofnature57]

76. That's a clue.

[Dragonfli]

5. All that his being so adamant tells me is that he is a neoliberal true believer

Such is not uncommon for those that describe themselves as new Democrats, in fact it rather defines the set of beliefs that the New Democrats rally around which sets them apart from those that do not classify themselves as New Democrats - Neo-liberal trade policies, privatization, and entitlement reform. All of which he has indeed supported in the past.

It is neither surprising nor mystifying but rather expected at this point.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

7. So you tell me, if we refuse to put up tariffs, and we do, if we refuse to invest here

so we can make shit here, what is the answer?

Do you acknowledge that we will lose more and more jobs each year ESPECIALLY if we dont do this deal?

Remember, I am against the deal, but lets talk REALITY for a minute, please.

your turn

[Dragonfli]

10. This deal will not change those factors but rather further enable them

The "on steroids" part of the description should tell you something, it is precisely these sorts of deals that are doing this to us, more of them are just to strengthen what has been wrought previously.

It is obvious to most, I do not understand why you fail to see it.

The only reason they want these deals is to open even cheaper labor markets now that China is growing more expensive and also the 90% of the deal that has nothing o do with trade has everything to do with increasing corporate power globally and extending copyright protections while weakening environmental protections - making drugs more expensive to poor countries and allowing corporations to treat the world as a toxic sewer (even more so than now).

There is no positive here, no matter how hard you are trying to squint and see such.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

11. So you acknowledge that without this deal, or lets assume there is no deal, we will lose

jobs every year for the reasons we all know, right?

So what is the answer?

I am asking you for an answer...not defending anything.


and are you saying you know already that there wont be some jobs from this, terrible and low paying, but how do you know that?

Again, I am AGAINST said jobs and TPP, but how do YOU know that?

[Dragonfli]

13. You know the answer and the lack of leadership to pursue what will work as you have posted it

But exponentially increasing the job loss by enabling even more than at present is the opposite direction and will make things worse.
Increasing the rate of job loss while increasing corporate power to the point of sovereignty will pile on more harm.

The only way to stop it is to get a leader that will lead, and not in the neoliberal direction we are being led now, but with policies that will reverse the trend rather than accelerate it.

Putting more gas on the fire will only add to the number of job loses, not reduce or manage them as you naivety appear to hope for.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

16. But wait, you didnt even agree with me about tariffs? YOu said nothing as to solutions, did you.

Get a leader TO DO WHAT?

i AM NOT just arguing with you, I am honestly curious what you and others think we can do...

We have to change the laws, right?

Punish companies that outsource, add tariffs etc

right???

I am a Democratic Socialist, I believe we should socialize more than we do now and institute major protectionism even if just for a short term. Do you agree?

[Dragonfli]

19. Yes, I am not an expert in the field, but those tactics have worked before

We need to pass laws that punish companies for outsourcing (or reward them for hiring here). Tariffs have been known to work as well, but would have to be worked out expertly to have the desired effect.

We have to, no matter what, stop the global race to the bottom for labor that is also a race to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few as they profit from such exploited labor.

I did not disagree with you on anything other than Obama has to pass this deal in some form, this deal is toxic through and through and can not be salvaged in any positive way.

Of course, that is JMO, but such as it is, there you have it.

[Jackpine Radical]

24. I would like to see a system of tariffs based on the labor conditions in the exporting countries.

Any nation that permits slave labor conditions would be hit with tariffs in proportion to the degree to which their workforce is denied humane conditions and wages.

That takes low-wage competition off the table. If a given nation wants to sell here, they gain nothing by depriving their workers, because if they do that, their products would face tariffs equal to the amount they are stealing from their workers.

[cali]

32. + 1

[A Simple Game]

69. +2

[TBF]

37. Reality is that we're gave away the cows with NAFTA -

and with TPP we're not only giving away the entire farm but also losing any sort of oversight. Intellectual property, regulations - corporations will hold the upper hand and be completely sovereign entities. We should be going in exactly the opposite direction if we have any concern at all for the average American worker.

[BainsBane]

41. I expect he thinks this is the best deal he can get

and better than what the GOP would negotiate.

It's not like defeating TPP would make the trade stop. As it stands, very little is manufactured in the US and companies are finding more and more of their markets overseas. Electing a different Democrat, someone you consider a real Democrat, isn't going to change the fact we are in an increasingly global capitalist system. TPP is a piece of shit, largely because of the boards that operate like Chapter 11 of NAFTA, but if you believe you can wish away global capitalism and outsourcing by electing a pure Democrat, you're lying to yourself. That ship sailed decades ago. It's unfortunate that people weren't paying attention as it was happening.

[Dragonfli]

44. "It's unfortunate that people weren't paying attention as it was happening."

It's still happening and I am paying attention right now.

That is why I don't want it to worsen simply because we have a President who believes in this neoliberal crap.

You act as if is inevitable that we pass more deals in dark rooms that work even further against us. That is defeatist quietism. We may never have another President that isn't purchased again, even if we don't, I will still fight the deals their owners are purchasing.

You think we should continue because you weren't paying attention when it started? Pay attention now, for the record, I was paying attention when it was happening but I trusted that that bought piece of excrement Clinton "would get us the best deal" as you think your bought pol is going to get for you.

I will refrain from quietly excusing the selling out of our country. You give up if you want. Even if every single executive is bought in the future, there may be a way to whip votes to stop therm causing further damage. That is what we are doing now, not the Nihilists that think he will look out for them (or is it dreamers that think he gives a crap about them - he doesn't), but those of us actively fighting this deal with the few tools remaining that the citizens have against purchased presidents, as much fucking pressure on our reps as we can muster, it may not work, it is mostly theater after all, but I won't just jump down the hole because someone else's idol tells me to, he has you to do that, enjoy the fall, I suppose it is more fun if you are a willing victim.

[BainsBane]

45. Did I not just say TPP was shit?

What I said is that stopping TPP won't stop the outsourcing of jobs, since manufacturing all moved overseas some time ago. It's not defeatist. It's a question of knowing what world you actually live in.

I opposed TPP and called my Senators to urge them to vote against fast track. I made it clear in my post I opposed it, yet your entire rant is because you don't seem to imagine any trade exists outside of free trade deals. If I admit trade exists independent of TPP, I must be for it, despite the fact I clearly said otherwise.

My point was defeating it won't change the economy. It means companies don't pay tariffs, but since their markets are overseas anyway the tariff issue isn't nearly as important as it once was. You seem to think neoliberalism is simply what some people advocate or are. It is far more than that. It's the current stage of global capitalism. If you think electing a politician can change that, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can defeat every single trade deal in the future, and it won't change the nature of the global economy, which is not dependent on any trade deal we work out. Do you not get that? Trade deals do not drive global capitalism. Capital has a volition of its own that no government can control.

How do you imagine the absence of a trade deal changes the fact that nearly all manufacturing is already in Asia? How do you think it changes the fact that companies are increasingly producing for global markets and not American? Do you think the absence of a trade deal forces those companies back to America? Do you think it means they suddenly don't care about Asian markets and decide to develop some loyalty to the US? Capital is global now. It has loyalty to no place or nation. Its only goal is profit. Historians have demonstrated that capitalism brings about an erosion of what were once traditional bonds of loyalty between employer and employee. In the US, that change began to be solidified by the second quarter of the twentieth century. It hasn't existed at all for most of my lifetime, with a few exceptions so rare they get news coverage.

Understanding the nature of the economy is not "selling out the country." For one thing I don't own it, so you're point is patently absurd on every level. My only potential to influence is in calling my senators, which I did to ask them to Vote against TPP. But evidently if I don't engage in some fantasy that pretends this is 1960, that equates with "selling out my country." If you started paying attention during the Clinton administration, you were only two decades late, so clearly you weren't paying attention at the time since you can't even date it. The Rust Belt was already in depression by the early 80s.
How you expect to be able to address a problem when you refuse to understand it?

Ultimately we have a disagreement here about cause and effect. You seem to think a deal in the US congress transforms global trade, whereas I think those deals facilitate and institutionalize a process already well underway. I believe the evidence, in terms of timing of factory closings, deindustrialization, outsourcing, and growth of markets in Asia-- supports my position.

[Depaysement]

67. "Very little is manufactured in the US"

U.S. manufacturing alone would account for as much as the entire GDP of Russia and Italy, almost as much as the UK, more than India, Spain, Canada and virtually every other nation on the planet. If we did nothing but manufacturing we would still have a top ten GDP.

[BainsBane]

78. seriously?

I guess I look at rust belt and see how long it's been depressed, as well as how most everything we buy is made overseas: electronics, clothing, regular stuff you buy to maintain the house.

[Depaysement]

79. Manufacturing has increased since the President was elected

It is one of several overlooked achievements. It is still only about 13% of the total GDP, but in global terms it is much more than most people think.

[BainsBane]

80. Yes, I know it has increased since Obama took office

But still much lower than it used to be and, as you noted, no longer the base of the economy.

[Depaysement]

81. It does not qualify as "very little"

Take away half of that manufacturing and the U.S. economy would collapse.

[cui bono]

17. I don't understand your point.

You think Obama is doing the right thing? And he knows better than us and we don't want to hear it?

That's what I get from it, is that what you are saying?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

29. NO, I am saying the trade deal is bad, probably will result in more jobs here, BAD paying

jobs, maybe not, EITHER way I am against it.

What I am saying is we do not have the will to do what we must to provide jobs, so WHAT is the next course of action?

tariffs?

raise taxes on the rich to then do infrastructure?

I am for both, what do you think we will actually do, in the end?

I say none of the above, like Carlin said and so on.

[TBF]

38. So we should just give in and do what the owners want?

If you're not willing to fight with us that's fine, but at least don't hinder us. Tax, regulate, and legislate. Corporations have been given a free ride long enough.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

39. LOL oh god, been fighting longer than most here, donating to Bernie, have

volunteered, also work in voting issues

Believe in Democratic Socialism and so on

NO

I am asking WHAT do you think can be done, never mind

I am not wasting my energy on that kind of response

[TBF]

40. Your reponse was very defeatest

and I answered your question: taxation, regulation, legislation - we have to keep fighting

[JDPriestly]

22. Had you read the article, you would have learned that it is the

Republicans who support this trade agreement. Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch leading the parade. It is Democrats who really care about the interests of ordinary Americans who don't want the agreement.

We have lost millions of jobs and thousands of factories thanks to NAFTA. Why in the world would we enter into an agreement that will cost us even more jobs and factories?

It's ridiculous. History speaks for itself.

Obama and those who favor more "free" trade. which is not free at all by the way but costs most of us dearly, are overly optimistic about their vision of what the world will be in 10 or 20 years. Global warming is proceeding more rapidly than anticipated. The oceans are sicker than thought.

We should be developing an independent economy here that does not rely on the rest of the world for the manufacture of things like socks, textiles, shoes, steel, etc.

The vision that Obama has of the world that is approaching us puts him and if we accept his vision and act on it, us, in a very dangerous position in coming generations.

Climate change is going to change the world and especially the trade opportunities in the world. It is a mistake to go the TPP route at this time.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

27. that is what I said...that the only people fighting for US are the Dems, not all the Dems but Dems

and I am the one who has repeatedly said we need massive investment in mfg here with tariffs, etc.

[JDPriestly]

30. Sorry. I was surprised at what I thought you wrote.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

31. And I think it is possible TPP will provide jobs for AMericans, bad paying and subject

to horrible working conditions, etc.

Maybe not, but to me that isnt what is important.

WHAT do WE do?

Show me the political will to do tariffs and investment here or tax raising and hiring to do infrastructure and I will support that group, but Bernie is one person, we need a god damn movement.

I dont see it happening, ever. I want to be wrong.

[Jackpine Radical]

43. We need a movement. Yes.

Even if Bernie somehow survives the gauntlets of greed that will seek to batter him into oblivion, he is unlikely to have the support he needs to accomplish his mission in 2017. Getting Bernie into office is only the beginning of the solution. In fact, the only immediate advantage it may bring is that when the arrows rain down on us, we will know they aren't coming from the White House.

I could envision Bernie struggling and failing to bring about great and widely popular social changes in his first 2 years & being blocked at every turn by the Corpo-Congresscritters (of both parties). And at each such point Bernie makes clear what he was doing and who denied the public what they wanted and needed, then using this basis to put a new and reformed DNC on the trail of electing the leftists Bernie will need to get his stuff through.

[KoKo]

54. This...

On getting Bernie into office:

"In fact, the only immediate advantage it may bring is that when the arrows rain down on us, we will know they aren't coming from the White House."

I'd add: and the RW Corporate Think Tanks, Wall Street Bankers who have a knack of backing/funding/running policy for both Dem & Repub Presidents these days. What he does dealing with the MIC/Pentagon has much to do with those same two. Enough of this!

[Angel Martin]

28. i'm sure they are not your favourites

but they are opposed to this

http://jones.house.gov/sites/jones.house.gov/files/11.12.13%20Fast%20Track%20Letter.pdf

[raindaddy]

55. If Obama was doing what he thought was right for the American...

people then he would make the details of the bill public and let us decide for ourselves. Instead he's lambasting fellow Democrats who have actually looked at the bill and are warning us it's another series of kisses on the asses of the wealthiest people in the world.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

58. Arent trade deals always treated this way? That is a yes or no and my asking the

question does NOT mean I support TPP

I dont

[raindaddy]

65. I think we need to ask the question WHY is it being treated this way?

Warren is rightly concerned about some specific details of the bill. Specifics that have already been publicized so the whole shroud of secrecy doesn't make sense. The provision “Investor-State Dispute Settlement, should be of concern since it allows global corporations to challenge our local, state and federal laws if they believe they impede their right to more profit.

Why is Obama supporting this? Anyone have any idea. Warren and others have questioned it in public. Seems like a legitimate concern. Especially after hearing about the Canadian Finance Minister claim that the Volcker Rule violates the small print in NAFTA...

Obama's public response, he treats Warren and the public like they're naive children who don't deserve an explanation.... "She's wrong!"
Why is she wrong Mr. President, because logic tells me she's right...

[ananda]

71. I keep wondering if the PTB ..

.. threatened his family or something.

[raindaddy]

72. I think he'll be threatened with retiring a very rich man ......

Just like Bill Clinton

[Android3.14]

59. Well, I guess we know where you stand

Here's a hint.
"we better get on board and be willing to work for $5 an hour"

[Android3.14]

61. Obama has made zero attempt to explain why this is a good thing

His roughshod treatment of middle class Americans is vile.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

62. Dont be ridiculous, I said NO to those jobs, or CANT you READ!

I am so liberal, so much a socialist, it would make you think twice before you say such crap to me.

I believe in the Nordic Democratic Socialism model, do you?

I am talking about REAL LIFE, I have said it ONE HUNDRED TIMES, if we are not willing to reverse trade problems here by instituting tariffs and taxing the rich and corps to invest in mfg here, then WHAT IS THE ANSWER?

You tell me you are willing to hit the streets and demand this, then we have something to talk about

[Android3.14]

63. It's not my reading; it's your writing

Your post, besides having one of the longest sentence fragments I've seen in a while ("That we do not have the political will to do what we must, tariffs and investment at home, so we better get on board and be willing to work for $5 an hour instead of nothing.&quot , is unclear as to your position on this issue.

I regret that I misunderstood your comment as support for the TTP, but regardless of your unfortunate use of allcaps in order to insult someone, the responsibility for the error is yours.

[Maedhros]

6. To quote Henry Rollins:

"When someone wants to hand you a big pile of horseshit, you don't have to take it."

[Doctor_J]

8. I wonder why he thought acting like a Republican would rally more Dem votes

He's really lost his way

[gratuitous]

9. Oh you libruls! Wrong again

See, President Obama has been stumping for the TPP knowing full well that Senate Democrats would oppose him on it, and that it would stir up the liberal base. See? He *wants* to get the liberals primed and ready for action for 2016, see? It's an elaborate, 12-level ruse designed to increase liberal enthusiasm and blunt conservative motivation, see?

See? Another genius move! See? It's crystal clear if you're in favor of reasonableness!

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Was he having trouble selling TPP before he 'attacked' Warren?

Yes.

The notion that his so-called 'attacks' on Warren have hurt the prospects of TPP is far-fetched.

Most Dems were already skeptical.

[MisterP]

14. if you punish and attack people no matter what they do, they'll just stop responding

altogether

[riqster]

15. Thanks for this post.

Lots of people need to hear it.

[Left coast liberal]

18. Yeah, it was strangely ham-handed of him. Weird even...

[PADemD]

21. Desperation on his part?

Why?

[EndElectoral]

20. Even if Obama wins this one, he really has lost a lot...

I am baffled why he has chosen this mess as his signature piece as a lamb duck, and alienated a great many democrats in the process.

What I have been able to ascertain what is contained within it, there is very little benefit to rank and file Americans, and it seems to be a boon for corporate interests who will have a way to bypass judicial actions.

I am really confused, especially after reading Nobel prize winning economist Stiglitz' recent op-ed who views the treaty as somewhat of a disaster.

[JDPriestly]

23. He is worried about finding a job when he leaves office.

He wants to educate his two daughters. That's my guess. Those speaking engagements that Hillary gets at 200,000 dollars a throw? They are not available if you don't play the Wall Street game. Hillary gets them because she knows how to suck up to Wall Street. Obama won't get them if he Wall Street doesn't like him.

He gets the president's pension but that is rarely enough to satisfy the lifestyle that a president becomes accustomed to.

And then there is the Wall Street and corporate funding for Hillary in the next election. Obama doesn't want to stop that flow.

TPP does not serve the interests of ordinary Americans. It is a sweetheart deal for the corporations, a corporate coup if you will -- courts just for corporations in which they can sue us as a people, that is our government -- special trademark and patent laws that supersede the laws our Congress wrote to give companies like Disney and Fox huge earnings from very old masterworks like Mickey Mouse for a long time to come.

Just a couple of the perks for corporations in this TPP deal.

We lost out on NAFTA and our other agreements. Our negative balance of payments proves it. We will have to repay every cent of that balance of payments and it will be repaid in terms of low wages and a declining standard of living.

Enough is Enough. No TPP. It's a corporate coup.

[TBF]

42. Well as I've said many times we need to keep fighting

against both him and repubs on this - and anyone else who wants it.

But I do think I understand the logic. He's got his book royalties so I don't think it's pure monetary reward he's looking for. He has lived in that part of the world and he has seen the poverty up close.
That is where I think this is coming from. I could be way off base but that's my guess. The problem I've always had with this neoliberal theory, however, is that instead of raising the boats of poor people globally they instead play this game of raising certain areas (while others fall via losing jobs). It's never the billionaires who take the hit because they are apparently too scary to mess with.

Think about that phrase "third world problem" that has been bandied about the past few years. It's a marketing ploy to make you think you have enough and are over-reacting - especially when others are so much worse off (ostensibly). It is meant to keep people docile and accept things they wouldn't normally accept. We think to ourselves "oh yes, in *fill in the spot* they have it so much worse, this is really not such a bad problem". So, we lower our expectations. But notice the billionaires are never asked to lower THEIR expectations in the same way. Little boats are raised up and lowered at whim, but those yachts keep plugging along exactly where they want to go. At least that is the way I see it.

[JDPriestly]

46. You state precisely my thoughts when it comes to the argument

that we have to give up our economic future in order to "help" the poor in underdeveloped countries. I'm all for helping them, but let the super-rich in our country pay the cost of helping them. I do not want my neighbors and our American children and grandchildren to pay the overly high price that we ordinary people are paying for this important assistance to the poor around the world.

If you hob-nob with the D.C. in-crowd, if you live on the West Side of Los Angeles or La Jolla or Bel Air or certain other parts of the country, you assume that Americans are all rich and can afford to sacrifice to help others. But then you come to the East side of Los Angeles, to the South of Los Angeles, to the poor countryside in the US, to bankruptcy courts, to family law courts, to our prisons and jails and you realize that we still need more jobs, many more jobs than we have. If NAFTA had resulted in an increase in American production and jobs, then their would be no resistance to the TPP. But the fact is that NAFTA has hurt Americans in too many ways to count.

No to the TPP. It's a corporate coup. I'm not even getting into the more complex issues of the international arbitration court set up just to help businesses and the questions about the constitutional conflicts with the portions of the agreement we have seen.

[KoKo]

56. Interesting point...

"Third World Problem" That has been sold to us--as you say:

The problem I've always had with this neoliberal theory, however, is that instead of raising the boats of poor people globally they instead play this game of raising certain areas (while others fall via losing jobs). It's never the billionaires who take the hit because they are apparently too scary to mess with.

And, not to distract from your post, but just to add that bringing "Democracy and Freedom" to the "Poor and Oppressed of the World" which has been sold to us for decades and more often than not brought revolution, death, destruction, dislocation and poverty to the very people we were supposedly, altruistically, trying to help. That's what we were sold. It's revealed that is a Neo-Lib/NeoCon dream that has failed also, imho.

[whereisjustice]

64. If Hillary can get $300,000+ for fawning speeches kissing the asses of Wall Street, he probably

figures TPP should net him $400,000+. You know, cost of living and all that.

[Dont call me Shirley]

25. K & R

Love your Bernie logo, Jackpine.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Thanks. It was fun to make.

[red dog 1]

34. K&R...Thanks for posting

I'm bewildered by Obama's attacks on Dems who oppose the TPP.

[Jack Rabbit]

36. Somehow, I knew that was a bad strategy.

Senator Warren has done nothing that would give his cause to feel ashamed. Anybody who tries to bring shame upon her for he principled and totally righteous stand against another bad trade agreement is the one who should feel shame.

[Orsino]

50. How? He's already sold it to them, and they are going to hand him the keys to the economy. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

52. He bought enough Senators to get it through.

There are still shoals ahead in the House.

[Orsino]

53. Even if the House somehow thwarted TPA, he'll still get his TPP eventually. n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

77. Let's hope , work and pray for him to fail, just like republicans wanted him to

from his first address to the country, until about a year ago.

[KoKo]

57. bought?

I think it was "thumb screws."

[Jackpine Radical]

60. Maybe waterboarding.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. Bought? You mean bribe?

Wouldn't that be illegal?

[Jackpine Radical]

74. Tsk Cali,

there are so many ways to get the quid far enough from the quo that nobody but a {deleted word I already got a hide for} paranoid Progressive would imagine a pro.

[grasswire]

75. well said nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

66. The same old donkey & carrot

Community Organizer > > Post-Presidential corp. exec. position

[whereisjustice]

68. Obama clearly hates US workers. He says it is because our standard test scores aren't as good, but

he hates us because we won't live on $2/day while living in a cardboard shack that gets wiped out by a typhoon every few years.

Let him send his kids to Vietnam to sew sneakers for the rich and then tell us what a wonderful experience it is to help the middle class in Asia instead of the middle class in the USA.

[hifiguy]

70. Isn't it interesting that

Obama is fighting more fiercely for this than anything else in his presidency.

He will doubtless benefit handsomely from it in his post-presidential years, just as the Clintons were so lavishly rewarded for their services rendered to the plutocracy.