HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Exclusive: Obama Committe...

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 07:48 PM

 

Exclusive: Obama Committed To Pacific Trade Deal, Even As Opposition Spreads - Rice

Source: Reuters

By Roberta Rampton
Reuters
March 9, 2016

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama is fully committed to pushing for Congress to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal despite anti-trade sentiment gaining steam on the presidential election campaign trail, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said on Wednesday.

Voter anxiety and anger over international trade and the 12-nation Pacific trade pact have helped propel the campaign of Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, as well as Senator Bernie Sanders, who is running against Hillary Clinton for the
Democratic nomination.

"The president remains fully committed to working to achieve ratification on the U.S. side and encouraging all of our TPP partners to move through their domestic processes to do the same," Rice told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

For Obama, the TPP is a legacy issue, and standing firm on the pact reassures other nations with high expectations for the deal. At the same time, it highlights a division with Clinton, a close political ally, who has been grappling with Democratic anxiety about trade on the campaign trail.

Read more: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-obama-committed-pacific-trade-deal-even-opposition-213412696--finance.html

24 replies, 2301 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Exclusive: Obama Committed To Pacific Trade Deal, Even As Opposition Spreads - Rice (Original post)
Purveyor Mar 2016 OP
silvershadow Mar 2016 #1
Baobab Mar 2016 #17
Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #2
Angry Dragon Mar 2016 #9
OneCrazyDiamond Mar 2016 #3
Akicita Mar 2016 #11
MisterP Mar 2016 #4
SoapBox Mar 2016 #5
tularetom Mar 2016 #6
FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #7
earthshine Mar 2016 #8
Angry Dragon Mar 2016 #12
Cavallo Mar 2016 #14
Baobab Mar 2016 #18
chapdrum Mar 2016 #10
earthshine Mar 2016 #15
bemildred Mar 2016 #13
Doctor_J Mar 2016 #16
burrowowl Mar 2016 #19
pampango Mar 2016 #20
JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 2016 #21
sendero Mar 2016 #22
coyote Mar 2016 #23
pampango Mar 2016 #24

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 07:50 PM

1. They need to drown it in Grover Norquists' bathtub. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silvershadow (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 01:17 AM

17. This is a really excellent article on TPP entitled "Major Complications"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 07:51 PM

2. Very disappointed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:15 PM

9. so am I

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 07:54 PM

3. is it just me,

or does "move through their domestic processes" sound like a bowel movement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:23 PM

11. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 07:59 PM

4. and why not? DU's full of posts bragging about how he's leaving with 51% approval

and how PROUD they are of how much obstructionism he's overcome (forgetting that his DNC pick let the GOP take Congress)

he can do whatever he likes: as much as we denounce TPP/TISA our actions show our words are worthless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MisterP (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:02 PM

5. Exactly.

WTF is wrong with his brain on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:08 PM

6. Obama puts the screws to Clinton

I don't know why Obama is so anxious to trash what remains of his "legacy" with his support for this piece of shit, but it is amusing to watch him put Clinton between a rock and a hard place by reiterating his advocacy while she is out on the campaign trail claiming to "oppose" it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:11 PM

7. The TPP is Obama's final assignment from his owners.

He has been given his marching orders and no choice in the matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:12 PM

8. Generally, Obama makes logical arguments for the things he wants to achieve.

 

But, not on the TPP. He expects us to accept it based upon his judgment and word.

He literally tells us that the TPP is "progressive." I call it "disastrous" for the working people all over the world.

To those people who adore him, and there are many on the DU, it gives him political capital, and this is how he chooses to spend it.

Video: Joseph Stiglitz on the TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthshine (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:29 PM

12. this will bring him up to the level of G.W.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:42 PM

14. Or Clinton 1 anyway...

I wonder why he's doing it? His corporate ties must be afraid Bernie could win and won't sign it if it comes across his desk, so they're trying to get it a done deal now. Just guessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthshine (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 01:22 AM

18. 'progressive' in trade lingo means "irreversible" So Obama is saying its irreversible

'Liberalisation' means privatization or as they call it in India "Disinvestment" (I think that is a much more accurate term)

So "progressive liberalisation" (the core concept behind the WTO-GATS and TiSA) means "Irreversible Disinvestment"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:17 PM

10. When reading news like this,

 

am reminded of George Harrison's question: "Are we being punished for something we have forgotten to do?"

What have we done to deserve politicians like this (let alone borderline traitorous Republicans), and what does it say about our country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chapdrum (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:43 PM

15. We forgot to give him a primary challenger in 2012.

 

But Bernie knew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 08:31 PM

13. That will help elect Trump. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:06 PM

16. The most liberal president in history! Showing his lame duck super duper liberal self!

 

Like a love child of FDR, LBJ, and JFK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 02:27 AM

19. Corporate Libural Prez

paid for to look like he was a person of HOPE!
Americans got suckered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:05 AM

20. Sorry, Barack. TPP is going nowhere. NAFTA and the WTO will govern our trade with those countries

for longer than you might have hoped. All the presidential candidates oppose TPP except for Kasich and Rubio (maybe) who both may be gone by this time next week.

The real question now is what will the next president do. "Renegotiate" again. (The other countries say they won't do that but maybe they will have a change of heart.) Or act unilaterally and withdraw from them. Donald would certainly do the latter (kind of back to the future of the pre-FDR era) so that he would be free to levy tariffs on every country that made him mad. The former is more traditional but is not the 'bold' action that politicians (particularly right wing demagogues) like to brag about.

And if neither renegotiation nor withdrawal happen with the next president, we will have NAFTA and the WTO to complain about for a long time. It won't be the first time. FDR's ITO with its standards on labor rights, business regulation and full employment was shot down by congress leaving us with GATT which became the WTO neither of which had or has those standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:46 AM

21. This time, I'm happy to have an uncooperative, antagonistic congress.

Congress' motto: If Obama Like, We Hate.

TPP? Me hate, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:59 AM

22. Well now at least we know..

.... there is SOMETHING Obama will fight for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 09:07 AM

23. Thus the advent of anti-establishment candidates

 

Like Bernie and Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 10:35 AM

24. Krugman: "The case for TPP is very, very weak. ... if a progressive makes it to the White House,

he or she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things."

A Protectionist Moment?

Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins ó but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

But itís also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization ... Iíve always been clear that the gains from globalization arenít all that great ... less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation.

The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization ó not because itís technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ... Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements ó including TPP, which hasnít happened yet ó is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, he or she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread