Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumRemember when candidate Obama Promised to Renegotiate NAFTA?
And talked about labor being involved.
And talked about ordinary people being involved.
And talked about the problem of corporate lobbyists involvement in creating NAFTA
And wanted NAFTA to work for Main Street as well as Wallstreet
And called NAFTA a mistake.
Where did that guy go?
A major union's opinion on the TPP and their involvement:
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP
Corporate lobbyists that helped create the TPP:
http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/
Your elected representatives involvement in drafting the TPP:
They can only vote YES or NO on the agreement.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)think
(11,641 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)think
(11,641 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Mr. Obama is a person whom will never anger his peers or personal friends no matter what happens. He is a creature of his upbringing and education. The big monied people had him pegged from the get go,myself included knowing the alternative would be a real nightmare for this Nation. We now have a choice on the National Stage to really move this Nation towards a more balanced society rather than a two class one we presently have.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)He had to behave that way to get elected. Once in office, his essential conservative nature came out.
Too bad, I believed him. Never again.
840high
(17,196 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)ARGH.
whathehell
(28,969 posts)Let's not get fooled again.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)How important are we? Apparently to President Obama not very. He not only didn't follow through on his promise to revise NAFTA, he's fighting harder than most of us have seen him fight his whole presidency for another NAFTA on steroids!
Enrique
(27,461 posts)Obama isn't especially dishonest for a politician, but on NAFTA he was quite dishonest. His people went to Canada and told them he didn't mean what he was saying, and then he denied that.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I see a renegotiation. One that might make it even easier for conglomerates to offshore more jobs, make more money by undercutting unions and regular people.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)He is renegotiating, unfortunately. At this point I'd rather he didn't.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The trashing of all the good because of outrage and misunderstanding over a bit of perceived bad...is, with all due respect, infantile.
For example, I am outraged over Warren's support of further funding for the IDF during the mass murder in Gaza, but I will not trash her as a person or as a great overall positive influence. I still love her, I will hope she evolves, as Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama have about their own decisions in different times, in different circumstances.
Please join me in a little grown up thinking.
think
(11,641 posts)and actually discuss why there is a glaring difference between where Obama stands now and where he stood in 2007?
Is that not at all relevant to the discussion?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Let's get real...
The TPP...Gitmo still open for business, continue of the permanent state of war all over the world, health care insurance with no public option, Wall Street not under control, Social Security on the chopping block, persecution of whistleblowers...need I go on or do you understand that it is not a bit nor is it perceived?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If NAFTA is soooo fucking great, as DU's free trade zealots insist, why do all these Democratic candidates for president treat it like kryptonite?
If anything, this new free trade agreement is even worse than NAFTA. American workers have nothing to gain but a great deal to lose. Yes, factory farms and Monsanto might benefit greatly. But the masses of Americans seeking decent wages and employment will be SOL.
Come on, Mr. Obama. Drop your hyperactive support for this destructive trade deal. You have already adequately demonstrated your undying loyalty to corporate America.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)appalachiablue
(41,053 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
panfluteman
(2,054 posts)Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,575 posts)A community leader sees the injustices a program creates and gets politically active to change it. If he or she succeeds in rising to a level of power, instead of undoing what has already gone before, his head gets all twisted up by the same pitchmen, using the same sales pitch. "This program will create blah, blah number of jobs, will increase government revenue and it is cost effective."
I mean, it's obvious. Community leaders who get that far up the ladder become disconnected from the real people who were injured the last go around. So, it's not about providing remedies to make people whole again. It's about going the easy route and bringing income into the U.S., even though those who benefit will not be the same who have been injured with the last legislative program.
It really does look like a pitch for trickle down economics. Or, as I like to call it, Beating the Piñata. How much you're likely to benefit from what's inside, depends entirely how close you are to the contraption when it rips open.
There are goodies that indeed trickle down, but only those who are closest to the thing will benefit. If I were a cartoonist, I would depict trickle down in that manner. Only a few people will actually be close enough to enrich themselves, while everyone is stuck in the next room.
tblue
(16,350 posts)They're not stupid.
Did Obama not mean what he was saying then or does he not mean it now???
think
(11,641 posts)Perhaps they were correct.
I should just grow up and expect politicians to do exactly the opposite of what they say....
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)Castigating us for wanting Obama to at least try to do what he said he would do. Instead, he didn't even try, and worked hard against what he said he'd do.
Not just trade deals but important things like regulating Wall Street. He was strident in saying we needed to tighten up regulations.
Then he wins and here comes the anti regulation crowd as his financial team. Not only did Obama not push for tougher regulation, but he was the loud voice against providing homeowners who had been victimized with federal cash. But he had no problem doling money out to the fraudsters, the banksters, who got to keep all the money they made through their blatant fraud.
And of course, Obama and Holder sent no big shots to prison as he should have. He fined Chase and the like 25 million or so, like fining most of us $15.
And now Obama is all in on the TPP. But I thought he was against trade deals?
I find blind allegiance much more troubling then holding our politicians to what they've said they would do - especially if they quickly go in the other direction.
erronis
(14,955 posts)I think we'll find a lot of skeletons, hidden marionette strings, threats, quiet conversations with special interests.
Or maybe we'll find an expose that shows how he never ever planned to do any of the things that would negatively impact people in power.
There's always the argument for pragmatism, that he realized he couldn't accomplish his agenda given the force of money on congress and the willingness of many of those critters to put their bank balances ahead of the country.
But many of his actions including these trade deals appear to really be initiated by his administration. Congress is just asked to go along for the ride to prosperity (personal, not national.)
whathehell
(28,969 posts)Damansarajaya
(625 posts)You don't get to sit there if you're a champion for the working class.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)jalan48
(13,798 posts)When I voted for 'Hope and Change' I didn't realize it meant Obama was going to change into a Republican once he got into office.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)your own peril. Greed for personal and corporate benefit/control/power has metastasized and now an overwhelming majority in both party's are afflicted with the disease of "Affluenza".
It Didn't used to always be that way...but things have changed from "yester-year"...a Lot.
I have lost all Trust, frankly in the Democratic Party. Especially the leadership ... and They have Waaaaay too many followers in "the people house".
When the party leadership loses trust from it's base...Elections...lots of them will be lost.
I can only assume the Pay is better "on the dark side"...and that's all that matters to them anymore.
I can count on one hand "trustworthy" (imo) pols.
Obama and the Dem Party have incrementally Lost the trust they've been able to cash in on for decades. It was first starkly evident in the 2010 election results. Again in 2012...and when we "screamed" the end of our tolerance for Austerity/KXL/TPA/TPP etc in the 2014 elections by NOT voting? We're still ignored. Oh, They hear us, folks..they just don't give two shits. Messina's recent work in the UK ought to be a clue
What more proof do we need from the people who Say they're For us while Voting Against us?
swilton
(5,069 posts)It was enough to talk flamboyantly after Bush II who had trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. What we need now is someone who walks the talk and not just an eloquent speaker.
I especially echo the sentiments of the absence of the 'comfortable shoes'....they have yet to see the light of day.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)Look at their body of work, who do they empower?
appalachiablue
(41,053 posts)Have you seen the many recent news pieces how Warren is just wrong and other Dems. are engaging in 'hypotheticals', nothing to worry about. It's disturbing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251407024
I posted last night. There are at least 2 additional *story links within the main article that are worthwhile, one with a Map. Pretty obvious also is the hardness on libruls. Decent articles, if CNN
Response to think (Original post)
appalachiablue This message was self-deleted by its author.