General Discussion

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)

8. Thanks for posting this! I was looking for it in order to try and understand why Pres. Obama is

Fri Jan 30, 2015, 11:48 PM

Jan 2015

pushing the TPP so hard against the complaints of anti-TPPers from the Left. I have already said that I'll reserve judgment until I know the facts, rather than embrace baseless rumor and gossip, with the caveat that I believe President Obama won't do anything to cause us undue harm because he never has. In fact, everything he's done has benefited the American people.

The question then became, why would he suddenly push for a pact that would harm the American worker? That just didn't make sense to me, so I decided not to wade into any discussion about the evils of TPP until I know more.

However, during the SOTU, I did remember him mentioning the TPP and why it was important to U.S. exports and American jobs - which is totally opposite of what his critics are complaining about.

Thanks for posting this information, ucrdem. It's very helpful.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

156 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The point of TPP is to boost US exports. That's why PBO is behind it. [View all] ucrdem Jan 2015 OP

Might want to have a look at Think's thread. Scootaloo Jan 2015 #1

I noticed the writer admits that he is completely uninformed. ucrdem Jan 2015 #4

The AFLCIO has not received any information they requested. WaPo has their information for the story think Jan 2015 #7

Evidently the writer of your post is unaware of the internet ucrdem Jan 2015 #9

WaPo quoted the author of the research the jobs claim is made on. think Jan 2015 #14

Petri says job growth would oustrip job loss ucrdem Jan 2015 #16

Exactly. Andy823 Feb 2015 #146

Does the AFLCIO traditionally have a right to information from the Fed. Gov't while still in BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #13

Clearly candidate Obama felt so since he stated he would invite the AFLCIO to renegotiate NAFTA /nt think Jan 2015 #15

Well, that was *before* he understood what being president would be like. Then, when he entered the BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #39

He learned that only corporate big wigs get to make US trade policy? /nt think Jan 2015 #41

Oh brother. Um...no. eom BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #44

Well what did he learn that would make him decide to exclude labor from the discussion? think Jan 2015 #49

Swiftboating. It's no secret that labor is against anything that they perceive to be NAFTA-esque. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #56

And why do you suppose that labor is against anythng NAFTA-esque. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #60

I'm not saying it's a BAD thing. I'm just pointing out their prejudice. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #72

A secret trade document that the largest corporations helped write and you blame labor think Jan 2015 #61

I trust this president more than Labor. Sorry, but I haven't really had good experiences with Labor. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #71

151 Democratic representatives from the house is alot of congress people to call out think Jan 2015 #79

You're entitled to your opinion. Anyway, do you know what the president wanted to fast-track BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #89

That bastion of conservative and libertarian ideology, the US Chamber neverforget Jan 2015 #103

Oh, hey, good, Union bashing from suppossed Democrats LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #105

how is that wrong exactly? Skittles Jan 2015 #54

Mahalo ucr Cha Jan 2015 #2

Thanks, Cha! ucrdem Jan 2015 #5

The PResident is after real Jobs for Americans.. we'll see what else he likes about this when Cha Jan 2015 #6

I think you are 110% right on the money. ucrdem Jan 2015 #10

KICK! Cha Jan 2015 #17

Were the 151 Democratic congress persons who raised their concerns "swiftboaters"? think Jan 2015 #42

Have Democrats in Congress ever really gotten President Obama's back in the past six years? BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #50

Dismissing the concerns of 151 Democratic congress persons is fairly egregious think Jan 2015 #58

Not dismissing those concerns. I'm questioning them. Fast-tracking TPP would mean that Republicans, BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #87

The link went to bed I guess madokie Jan 2015 #93

Why would Republicans add tons of amendments Oilwellian Jan 2015 #112

It is Democrats in congress complaining about Fast Track and NOT Republicans. think Jan 2015 #128

Make that 3. sheshe2 Jan 2015 #66

Thanks sheshe! ucrdem Jan 2015 #84

You are welcome urc.... sheshe2 Jan 2015 #88

Make it 4 madokie Jan 2015 #94

whoops ucrdem Jan 2015 #3

Thanks for posting this! I was looking for it in order to try and understand why Pres. Obama is BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #8

Thanks, BCD! ucrdem Jan 2015 #11

But the good stuff was just TheObamaDeception�. TheAnti-Christ� always does that. freshwest Jan 2015 #21

Or...they just say, "Don't believe him!" or "Sales pitch! I'm not buying it", forgetting, of course, BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #40

Even here I think a lot of it is madokie Jan 2015 #95

I didn't want to see it that way, but when I read some posts here and on other BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #113

I've learned that many of the people who I thought were alright madokie Jan 2015 #115

I've been disillusioned by many Liberals and Progressives who I thought were color blind, but BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #118

"... President Obama has yet to do anything that would harm the American worker ..." Scuba Jan 2015 #101

Yep. Hence the negative job growth since 2012 - Oh wait! BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #111

I have no hate for the President, but I don't figure the loss of 60,000 manufacturing jobs ... Scuba Jan 2015 #116

That's not how your posts come across, Scuba. Rarely do I see you praise the president BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #121

You must have missed a lot of my posts. Scuba Jan 2015 #135

You said Jamaal510 Jan 2015 #24

My thoughts exactly. I love Ed Schultz, but he's been wrong many times before compared to President BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #47

That and to push up wages in Vietnam and Honduras Recursion Jan 2015 #12

Thanks for that Recursion . . . ucrdem Jan 2015 #18

Obama claimed in 2008 that NAFTA cost America 1 million jobs. Was he wrong? think Jan 2015 #46

And rice. The U.S. has the BEST rice around. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #43

Rice growing requires water. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #67

--->"Unlike China that has NO non-GMO rice"<---Source Please nationalize the fed Jan 2015 #75

No. No suggesting that at all...seriously or just for shits and giggles. I'm pointing out that BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #91

First, before any new trade agreements, we have to get our balance of payments numbers under JDPriestly Jan 2015 #63

Yes. Wonderfully stated. n/t susanna Jan 2015 #80

But Stiglitz and Moyers hate Obama rusty fender Jan 2015 #129

Thank you, JD. We lose out every minute that we make deals with overseas Nay Jan 2015 #137

Thanks for posting fadedrose Jan 2015 #19

Exactly, I think he's out to get the best deal he can get for US workers. ucrdem Jan 2015 #20

Not as many haters as there were fadedrose Jan 2015 #117

What exactly is a "US export"? moondust Jan 2015 #22

From what I've read it's pharmaceuticals, instruments, media, ucrdem Jan 2015 #23

As for soybeans, moondust Jan 2015 #25

How the auto jobs and manufacturing Obama saved... I remember when American cars were the standard. freshwest May 2015 #149

Thanks freshwest! ucrdem May 2015 #152

American jobs to India, Russia, China, and the former Soviet Bloc. nt TheBlackAdder Jan 2015 #114

I see we've entered the "It's Actually a Good Thing!" part of the process. /nt Marr Jan 2015 #26

Yes, the corporate propaganda pushers for the 1% are out in full force. Elwood P Dowd Jan 2015 #27

He didn't run against free trade agreements, and if this was NAFTA, ucrdem Jan 2015 #29

Some people here act like Obama ran on a radical left-wing platform YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #53

Rose colored glasses. joshcryer Jan 2015 #65

He specifically promised to renegotiate NAFTA. Marr Jan 2015 #76

Yes, here let me take your job. It only hurts for a little while. And look at how good you will JDPriestly Jan 2015 #70

Excuse me for being skeptical. JEB Jan 2015 #28

"U.S. Call for Environmental Defense in Trans-Pacific Partnership": ucrdem Jan 2015 #30

Nice sales pitch. JEB Jan 2015 #31

Campaign speech. 2naSalit Jan 2015 #33

If it's such a sell-out, why is it taking so long to finish? ucrdem Jan 2015 #35

Then why the sections allowing corporate thugs to overrule elected governments? n/t eridani Jan 2015 #32

Can you post those sections? ucrdem Jan 2015 #34

All there in Wikileaks. eridani Jan 2015 #68

Right, the secret IP agreement that's been leaked once a month ucrdem Jan 2015 #73

It's the trade courts. The courts patterned after the NAFTA courts. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #74

Okay but the treaty being negotiated isn't NAFTA. ucrdem Jan 2015 #78

Could you, ucrdem, please post the TPP agreement since you are advocating for it so strongly? JDPriestly Jan 2015 #77

Happy to oblige: ucrdem Jan 2015 #83

That is not a trade agreement. That is an absolutely worthless, vague and very general JDPriestly Jan 2015 #86

How can one oppose it, or bash Obama, for that same reason? Hoyt Jan 2015 #90

One can oppose trade agreements in general. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #98

I guess if one thinks we are self-sufficient and should stick to the rest of the world. I don't. Hoyt Jan 2015 #124

Several reasons. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #131

I don't think you get where you want to be by isolation, particularly in the long run. Hoyt Jan 2015 #133

I'm not suggesting isolation. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #136

AAAAAAAAMEN. nt Nay Jan 2015 #139

I agree - vagueness of the language leaves the actual action open to a whole bunch of differing jwirr Jan 2015 #127

Good idea. But the paper is just full of noble-sounding intentions. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #132

That's not an intellectually honest question YoungDemCA Jan 2015 #55

Horsehit. This abomination exists to enable corporations to sue governments eridani Jan 2015 #69

"The point of TPP is to boost US exports" Joe Turner Jan 2015 #36

American jobs were going with or without NAFTA. NAFTA gets blamed for a lot of junk Hoyt Jan 2015 #38

American jobs were going with or without NAFTA Joe Turner Jan 2015 #48

Not like they were starting in the late 1990s after NAFTA, GATT/WTO Uruguay round, MFN for China Elwood P Dowd Jan 2015 #59

Thank goodness, one of only a few threads not bashing Obama for selling us down the river with TPP. Hoyt Jan 2015 #37

we're just supposed to BELIEVE, Hoyt Skittles Jan 2015 #51

It's the other way round on DU treestar Feb 2015 #145

I disagree Skittles Feb 2015 #147

There is the question of how people work for those corporations treestar Feb 2015 #148

With TPP Obama certainly is selling us down the river Joe Turner Jan 2015 #52

This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jan 2015 #45

Before we enter into any more trade agreements we need to fix our balance of payments numbers. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #57

That, and to leverage consumer products as automation comes online. joshcryer Jan 2015 #62

Well, this is sure to piss Putin off!! Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #64

Unless it lowers imports more, it's just more of a race to the bottom Populist_Prole Jan 2015 #81

KnR to read more about the TPP later.... Hekate Jan 2015 #82

I think we're going to pleasantly surprised ucrdem Jan 2015 #85

Thanks so much ucrdem. great white snark Jan 2015 #92

I wasn't one of the ones who liked it when he said God is in the mix. Jamastiene Jan 2015 #96

Boost Exports, yeah jobs, oil and US Dollars is the only thing that will be exported ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #97

That thing will be a calamity. BeanMusical Jan 2015 #99

Exports are 40% of Germany's economy; 9% of the US'. Imports are 35% in Germany; 13% in the US. pampango Jan 2015 #100

We've heard this song before.. sendero Jan 2015 #102

I want to thank the Third Way "Democrats" for their input in this LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #104

So anyone with a different opinion is "Third Way" and a member of the BOG? Nice. pampango Jan 2015 #107

Anyone who thinks a treaty that is negotiated in secret, LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #120

All international treaties are negotiated 'in secret'. Should liberals oppose all treaties? pampango Jan 2015 #122

Folks seem uninformed..as you say treaties are ALWAYS negotiated in secret, voted in in public. Duh. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #126

Extolling the virtues of the Third Way? LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #130

Nice spin. I said "even if I disagree with the rest" and "reject most of what they peddle". That pampango Jan 2015 #134

lol Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #138

Illogical knee-jerk reaction? YoungDemCA Feb 2015 #140

It's an illogical knee-jerk reaction to despise the Third Way for trying to LondonReign2 Feb 2015 #141

I think that pretty much nails it, scary. Broward Jan 2015 #108

I also want to thank them for rec'ing the thread. It is nice to have a concise list. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #110

Yep, that basically sums up the "arguments" on display here. QC Jan 2015 #123

We had a hell of a storm three years ago and Jesus suggested we go with a metal roof. Autumn Feb 2015 #142

"extremely child like and well, just fucking stupid" QC Feb 2015 #143

Some people will believe any damn thing. 99Forever Jan 2015 #106

Stuck in spin cycle. Call the repairman. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #109

How is there an assumption of knowledge, let alone accuracy. The fucking deal is a secret. Yeah lonestarnot Jan 2015 #119

fact checker: imports would increase by virtually the same amount as exports bigtree Jan 2015 #125

True. As is the case the other FTAs Populist_Prole Feb 2015 #144

Logic checker: increased trade means increased jobs...for both partners. Obama is correct. Fred Sanders May 2015 #153

reality check bigtree May 2015 #155

For that claim to be true, the TPP would need to cover countries with trade barriers jeff47 May 2015 #150

So let's have a full and open debate on TPP in Congress rurallib May 2015 #151

the only "export" under TPP would be filthy, Earth-warming fossil fuels- tar sands oil& fracked gas TimeToEvolve May 2015 #154

Oh Boy ! kentuck May 2015 #156