Obama says will make strong push for fast-track trade authority
Source: Reuters
U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday committed to urge lawmakers to back a bill giving trade deals a fast track through Congress, an effort some think could break a logjam on the issue and help secure major agreements under negotiation.
Speaking to business leaders, he acknowledged differences within his own Democratic Party on free trade agreements that he supports and said he would also make the case to unions that trade brought benefits for workers.
A bill to give the Obama administration so-called fast-track power, which would allow only yes-or-no votes on trade deals in Congress without amendments, has been stuck all year.
Obama said he planned to speak to congressional leaders on both sides to make "a strong case on the merits of why this has to get done."
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/03/us-usa-trade-obama-idUSKCN0JH24220141203
= new reply since forum marked as read
So that they'll have more money for more lobbying 
What else is he supposed to do? We have to do SOMETHING!!!!! And this is SOMETHING. If you don't have alternatives to the SOMETHING that we supposedly HAVE to do according to the people who are obviously smarter than all of us hippies, I'd be happy to listen. But until then.....WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO ASK FOR A PONY SOMEWHERE ELSE, EMO PROGS!!!!!
Fifty percent of Americans think trade destroys jobs and 45 percent think it lowers wages, according to a poll from the Pew Research Center. Obama said anti-trade sentiment had also increased among Republicans.
It will only "help raise labor and environmental standards" is there are strict, enforceable standards in it. If they are, perhaps someone can leak them.
Here's the Pew Poll referenced in Obama's quote:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/09/16/faith-and-skepticism-about-trade-foreign-investment/
And like a typical online corporate propagandist, you have no scruples or inhibition or shame at all in reposting and reposting and reposting your misinformation in the hopes there might be some gullible idiots out there who might believe your tripe.
"If you do not like to see polls showing that attitudes of the GOP base/Tea Party with respect to trade, please ignore them."
If you are going to post polls here, don't misrepresent them. Here is a poll from that very same Pew article you've selectively excerpted from and spammed here on DU for the past several years. It shows that Americans of all political backgrounds agree that the so-called "free trade" agreements lead to American job losses. Indeed, the poll reveals that Democrats do not support 'free trade "over all" -- it says the opposite. The poll also shows that support for "free trade" among Democrats is plummeting.
Moreover, your support of the free trade deals demonstrates that you have much more in common with Republican Tea Baggers than you do with both the Democratic voters and Congressional Democrats:
http://firedoglake.com/2011/10/12/job-killing-trade-deals-pass-congress-amidst-record-democratic-opposition/
Job-Killing Trade Deals Pass Congress Amidst Record Democratic Opposition
Given the strong Democratic opposition, ultimately it was the Tea Party GOP freshmen who passed these job-killing deals (Bush and Obama's brokered KORUS, Panama and Colombian deals) despite their campaign commitments at home to stand up for Main Street businesses, against more job offshoring and for Buy American requirements.
Record of Congressional Democratic Opposition to Democratic Presidents on Trade Pacts
-82.3% of House Democrats opposed the Colombia FTA (158 Democrats against, 31 for)
-67.7% of House Democrats opposed the Korea FTA (130 Democrats against, 59 for)
-64,1% of House Democrats opposed the Panama FTA (123 Democrats against, 66 for)
-60.6% of Democrats opposed NAFTA (1993)
-35% opposed the WTO (1994)
-65.56% opposed China PNTR (2000)
Record of Congressional Democratic Opposition to GOP Presidents on Trade Pacts
-62.6% opposed the Chile FTA (2003)
-62.14% opposed the Singapore FTA (2003)
-41.3% opposed the Australia FTA (2004)
-39.32% opposed the Morocco FTA (2004)
-92.6% opposed the Central America Free Trade Agreement (2005)
-40.4% opposed the Bahrain FTA (2005)
-87.6% opposed the Oman FTA (2006)
slightly more than half opposed the Peru FTA (2007)
Finally, there's your typical rewriting of FDR's views on trade. Bottom line: While FDR supported trade in general, he would never for a minute have supported today's lobbyist-written deals such as NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS, and now TPP, which are designed to offshore American manufacturing jobs and depress US worker wages. FDR's Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act made crystal clear that US trade agreements involving mutual tariff reductions with corresponding nations would not commence if it meant that American workers would be hurt by the deal:
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Reciprocal_Tariff_Act.html
President Franklin D. Roosevelt was authorized by the Act for a fixed period of time to negotiate on bilateral basis with other countries and then implement reductions in tariffs (up to 50% of existing tariffs) in exchange for compensating tariff reductions by the partner trading country. Roosevelt was also instructed to maximize market access abroad without jeopardizing domestic industry, and reduce tariffs only as necessary to promote exports in accord with the "needs of various branches of American production." A most favored nation clause was also included.
Now go peddle your propaganda elsewhere -- like maybe the Wall St. Journal boards.
in general) if they see a bigger picture that they approve of. Looking at the results of those two questions, while republicans are marginally more likely than Democrats to view 'free trade' as hurting jobs, wages and the economy, republicans are much more likely to few it as bad policy than Democrats are (a plurality of whom support it).
58% of R's and 47% of D's believe it causes job losses, 45% R - 42% D that it lowers wages and 48% R to 34% D that it hurts the economy. Yet republicans think it is bad policy by a 54%-28% margin, while Democrats think it is good policy by a 40%-35% margin. Why are Democrats more likely to support a policy that they themselves view as harmful to themselves? Is there a 'bigger picture'?
A majority of both parties thought that 'free trade' was good for 'developing countries'. Indeed, for the most part, those have been the biggest beneficiaries. The lowest 70% on the global income scale have benefited the most, along with the top 1%. Those who have suffered the most are those in the 80th percentile of global income - most of us - the middle class in the developed world.
Perhaps republicans rightly see that 'we' have suffered the most and do not care much about the 70% so to them the answer is obvious - cut trade to protect 'us' from 'them'. Many liberals would, I think, look at the same graph (below) and wonder if we cannot help the 75%-85% group (most of us) by taxing or limiting the gains of the top 1% without jeopardizing the gains of the bottom 70%.
Is liberals' relative support for "free trade" despite their perception of it as harmful to themselves (and 'us') at all similar to liberal support for the civil rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, LGBT and immigrants despite the fact that it offers no direct benefits to straight, white male liberals? Indeed most conservatives want to return to the 1950's when white males had all the good jobs and political power. In their minds increasing the access of minorities, women, gays and immigrants to the benefits of the economy means that white men face extra competition for good jobs, college admissions and political power in general. From a selfish, narrow-minded point of view they may have a point but they make no effort to understand the 'bigger picture'.
Indeed one of the interesting aspects of the trade debate is that the republican base largely opposes the WTO and trade agreements but their politicians vote overwhelmingly in favor of them. The Democratic base is more supportive of trade but their politicians largely vote against it.
I have posted this many times and do not disagree with anything in the excerpts you posted.
He received these 'instructions' in the legislation authorizing fast track authority for him to negotiate these trade agreements. In more modern times, when congress authorizes 'fast track' for a president it always includes 'instructions' as to what the sense of congress is on what should be included in the agreements that will eventually be submitted to congress for an up-or-down vote.
