Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Elizabeth Warren Fires Back at Obama: [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)142. I'm gonna pick cherried and turn the tables from another thread:
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in January that the fast-track bill "puts Congress in the drivers seat to define our negotiating objectives and strengthens congressional oversight."
http://www.ibtimes.com/fast-track-authority-president-4-key-facts-about-proposed-trans-pacific-partnership-1888879
Well, by all means let's let the GOP controlled House and more importantly, the GOP Senate in charge of approving or declining treaties, have the right to tinker with the word in an agreement that many nations signed onto to get Congressional approval. A hint in the article is here:
A bill that would grant President Barack Obama more authority to negotiate international trade deals is under scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Obama is pictured here at the White House, April 14, 2015.
This sound like Iran nuke treaty obstruction again. The Koch Bros. have enough money to make a years long campaign to stop Obama from doing ANYTHING in order to sabotage America.
Tea Party and their front groups did not appear overnight. In fact, it started under Clinton with the big CT pundits and talk radio, who have since gone full Bircher.
In 2007 Bush promised the Koches Keystone and by that time they had most GOP leaders in their hip pocket. And those who weren't, were replaced by Tea Partiers. Charles Koch threatened Obama with two things his first year in office, that the Bush tax cut would NOT be sunsetted as intended in 2010, and if Obama didn't approve Keystone, that he would pay for it politically.
Obama ignored them and they told their media pals to promote the Tea Party. The result of almost a decade of RF 101, was a GOP majority that made the first order of business to rally the nation against the sunset of the Bush tax cuts by using media to call it a 'tax hike,' which people have been brainwashed against, despite that Obama was going to make it progressive. A high rate for the very wealthy, and less for the majority, and a lot of cuts for the working class and poor.
That was their first act and they held things up with threats of a shut down until they got in office in 2011 and immediately did it every year, getting more radical and making more outrageous demands. They have extorted and brainwashed the public at the same time and had full media assistance every stunt pulled.
At their last big stunt in 2013, they went all out. The opposition, whoever they are, screamed Obama was walking across the street to the Federal Reserve and talking with bankers. Oh, no!
That's when Boehner's face fell and the GOP capitulated in spite of Rand Paul saying he could sell default to the American people as reasonable, and Cornyn gleefully said they would get the chance to manage catastrophe with default. They wanted to re-organize the government on the ALEC maodel.
But the evil Obama went around and talked to his evil friends. I'm sure they showed Boehner and few pf the other conspirators a more graphic version of the Nutcracker Suite than most people see. They folded like the cheap deck of cards they are.
Nonetheless, the Koch dollars have not stopped flowing to get the American people busy and attacking each other while they run away with the store out of sight in state after state. They may be evil, but they have the best minds and mouths to sell their Randian vision money can buy.
Note, the other nations don't need us on this agreement. The USA is not essential, it is but one of many, just as the Iran deal was, and the Europeans didn't care for the GOP interfering with things that were goign to affect them.
Might that also be the case with this deal? That the other nations will just go with each other and leave us out of it? That would be great for the Koches, they'd get to have us be worse off. Break the nation and sell it off in pieces. As if the GOP are not doing this now in every state they control while the Democrats devour their own.
That's from a reply to someone I replied to. I chose to interpret it with fire extinguishers. I see a number of things that could be alarming, but that part of that paragraph stood out for me.
About Froman from his Wikipedia page, he doesn't sound bad, but I see a few alarm bells there:
Froman spent much of his career within the United States Department of the Treasury[2] where he rose to Chief of Staff under Robert Rubin in January 1997 and served until July 1999.
Sounds wonderful but there are things we ought to consider with this source. I don't personally know this man, he may be a saint.
After the end of the Clinton administration in 2001, Froman followed Robert Rubin from the Treasury Department to Citigroup.*[10] He was President and Chief Executive Officer of CitiInsurance and head of Emerging Markets Strategy at Citigroup, managing infrastructure and sustainable development investments.[2] He received more than $7.4 million from January 2008 to 2009 alone.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Froman
*Now, those are not necessarily bad things, if one looks at those items neutrally. Where are the anti-1% crowd when we need them to examine the people who want this deal destroyed?
Or maybe just wants to reform it, but this is a strange way to do it, revealing what goes on when these guys swear to not do so, or so I'd think. And it's not all that 'not transparent' or 'secret' since members of Congress have in their hands the actual agreement RIGHT NOW. The ones who didn't get hard copies are the ones complaining.
*I've been in such processes, and it's trying to not get hard copy and told you can't take them with you. I found out something very odd in my attempts. Others had come and gotten access, took the hard copies, and re-wrote them. IOW, not all people can be trusted with official documents, who knew?
Then the people who needed them for work, didn't have them, couldn't prove what the original said because of the edited copies floating about, which was true. A real pickle ensued and the rules were changed. Because the ones who got the copies and changed them didn't give a damn about the others affected.
Don't get me wrong, the value of having a hard copy is inestimable.
When I can get one, I do. But it can be suppressed, altered, or cherry picked for agenda. I know a number of whistleblowers and people that have testified in court and before legislatures. There is no media support, if it does not suit their agenda. People ought to think about what who owns the media and what their agenda is. These people who speak out, suffer alone and it's a hell of a road to go on, but necessary. Not all survive with their health intact or financially. No one cares about them, except those they're helping who are also nameless.
My argument on another thread, is also jusified in the article cited to say this was an evil process:
Fast track only means no added amendments made by the Senate, IOW, changes to the written agreement the signatories didn't agree to, so this is a basic logic fail.
Boo fucking hoo, they can't amend the words of others, but they can say No if they want. Get out the fire extinguishera and put the fire out, burnt hair stinks.
The reason for no amendments or fast tracking is the other nations involved are not in the Senate, HELLO? They'd have no say to what could disadvantage them for years, how is that an honest deal for them?
This is media brainwashing just like Iran negotiations were. Because... Obama can't be trusted, sn't smart enough, is a traitor and he's not a real American! Give it a rest!
The completed treaty that the Senate has the last word on would be their last chance for nations to have input, you can't change what they agreed to without starting again.
The Senate can vote the treaty up or down. Most of the uproar is ignorance of basic civics.
Would any of us sign onto something that will impact us for years and have a third party jump in after we've signed unto and change the rules?
Hell no...
That being said, it has good and bad things in it. The Congress is stepping out of its Constitutional role. It can NOT be the negotiator here, any more than they can set in and vote in all the countries of the world and tell them what they can and cannot do. If ego was a fossil fuel, gas would cost a quarter a gallon. I call BS. Not on all the fine people with concerns like Sanders, etc. On the GOP Congress that runs these stories.
I can see the hilarity of the GOP 'SPEAK ENGLISH, FURRINER' mob in a foreign capitol trying to negotiate ANYTHING. They are not fit to tule here, much less the world of finance or trade. I smell something rotten. It starts with the letter D and it ends with the letter C, and it's not Denmark.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it... No sleep for me tonight, but I must go and get ready for the day that is already here.
http://www.ibtimes.com/fast-track-authority-president-4-key-facts-about-proposed-trans-pacific-partnership-1888879
Well, by all means let's let the GOP controlled House and more importantly, the GOP Senate in charge of approving or declining treaties, have the right to tinker with the word in an agreement that many nations signed onto to get Congressional approval. A hint in the article is here:
A bill that would grant President Barack Obama more authority to negotiate international trade deals is under scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Obama is pictured here at the White House, April 14, 2015.
This sound like Iran nuke treaty obstruction again. The Koch Bros. have enough money to make a years long campaign to stop Obama from doing ANYTHING in order to sabotage America.
Tea Party and their front groups did not appear overnight. In fact, it started under Clinton with the big CT pundits and talk radio, who have since gone full Bircher.
In 2007 Bush promised the Koches Keystone and by that time they had most GOP leaders in their hip pocket. And those who weren't, were replaced by Tea Partiers. Charles Koch threatened Obama with two things his first year in office, that the Bush tax cut would NOT be sunsetted as intended in 2010, and if Obama didn't approve Keystone, that he would pay for it politically.
Obama ignored them and they told their media pals to promote the Tea Party. The result of almost a decade of RF 101, was a GOP majority that made the first order of business to rally the nation against the sunset of the Bush tax cuts by using media to call it a 'tax hike,' which people have been brainwashed against, despite that Obama was going to make it progressive. A high rate for the very wealthy, and less for the majority, and a lot of cuts for the working class and poor.
That was their first act and they held things up with threats of a shut down until they got in office in 2011 and immediately did it every year, getting more radical and making more outrageous demands. They have extorted and brainwashed the public at the same time and had full media assistance every stunt pulled.
At their last big stunt in 2013, they went all out. The opposition, whoever they are, screamed Obama was walking across the street to the Federal Reserve and talking with bankers. Oh, no!
That's when Boehner's face fell and the GOP capitulated in spite of Rand Paul saying he could sell default to the American people as reasonable, and Cornyn gleefully said they would get the chance to manage catastrophe with default. They wanted to re-organize the government on the ALEC maodel.
But the evil Obama went around and talked to his evil friends. I'm sure they showed Boehner and few pf the other conspirators a more graphic version of the Nutcracker Suite than most people see. They folded like the cheap deck of cards they are.
Nonetheless, the Koch dollars have not stopped flowing to get the American people busy and attacking each other while they run away with the store out of sight in state after state. They may be evil, but they have the best minds and mouths to sell their Randian vision money can buy.
Note, the other nations don't need us on this agreement. The USA is not essential, it is but one of many, just as the Iran deal was, and the Europeans didn't care for the GOP interfering with things that were goign to affect them.
Might that also be the case with this deal? That the other nations will just go with each other and leave us out of it? That would be great for the Koches, they'd get to have us be worse off. Break the nation and sell it off in pieces. As if the GOP are not doing this now in every state they control while the Democrats devour their own.
That's from a reply to someone I replied to. I chose to interpret it with fire extinguishers. I see a number of things that could be alarming, but that part of that paragraph stood out for me.
About Froman from his Wikipedia page, he doesn't sound bad, but I see a few alarm bells there:
Froman spent much of his career within the United States Department of the Treasury[2] where he rose to Chief of Staff under Robert Rubin in January 1997 and served until July 1999.
Sounds wonderful but there are things we ought to consider with this source. I don't personally know this man, he may be a saint.
After the end of the Clinton administration in 2001, Froman followed Robert Rubin from the Treasury Department to Citigroup.*[10] He was President and Chief Executive Officer of CitiInsurance and head of Emerging Markets Strategy at Citigroup, managing infrastructure and sustainable development investments.[2] He received more than $7.4 million from January 2008 to 2009 alone.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Froman
*Now, those are not necessarily bad things, if one looks at those items neutrally. Where are the anti-1% crowd when we need them to examine the people who want this deal destroyed?
Or maybe just wants to reform it, but this is a strange way to do it, revealing what goes on when these guys swear to not do so, or so I'd think. And it's not all that 'not transparent' or 'secret' since members of Congress have in their hands the actual agreement RIGHT NOW. The ones who didn't get hard copies are the ones complaining.
*I've been in such processes, and it's trying to not get hard copy and told you can't take them with you. I found out something very odd in my attempts. Others had come and gotten access, took the hard copies, and re-wrote them. IOW, not all people can be trusted with official documents, who knew?
Then the people who needed them for work, didn't have them, couldn't prove what the original said because of the edited copies floating about, which was true. A real pickle ensued and the rules were changed. Because the ones who got the copies and changed them didn't give a damn about the others affected.
Don't get me wrong, the value of having a hard copy is inestimable.
When I can get one, I do. But it can be suppressed, altered, or cherry picked for agenda. I know a number of whistleblowers and people that have testified in court and before legislatures. There is no media support, if it does not suit their agenda. People ought to think about what who owns the media and what their agenda is. These people who speak out, suffer alone and it's a hell of a road to go on, but necessary. Not all survive with their health intact or financially. No one cares about them, except those they're helping who are also nameless.
My argument on another thread, is also jusified in the article cited to say this was an evil process:
Fast track only means no added amendments made by the Senate, IOW, changes to the written agreement the signatories didn't agree to, so this is a basic logic fail.
Boo fucking hoo, they can't amend the words of others, but they can say No if they want. Get out the fire extinguishera and put the fire out, burnt hair stinks.
The reason for no amendments or fast tracking is the other nations involved are not in the Senate, HELLO? They'd have no say to what could disadvantage them for years, how is that an honest deal for them?
This is media brainwashing just like Iran negotiations were. Because... Obama can't be trusted, sn't smart enough, is a traitor and he's not a real American! Give it a rest!
The completed treaty that the Senate has the last word on would be their last chance for nations to have input, you can't change what they agreed to without starting again.
The Senate can vote the treaty up or down. Most of the uproar is ignorance of basic civics.
Would any of us sign onto something that will impact us for years and have a third party jump in after we've signed unto and change the rules?
Hell no...
That being said, it has good and bad things in it. The Congress is stepping out of its Constitutional role. It can NOT be the negotiator here, any more than they can set in and vote in all the countries of the world and tell them what they can and cannot do. If ego was a fossil fuel, gas would cost a quarter a gallon. I call BS. Not on all the fine people with concerns like Sanders, etc. On the GOP Congress that runs these stories.
I can see the hilarity of the GOP 'SPEAK ENGLISH, FURRINER' mob in a foreign capitol trying to negotiate ANYTHING. They are not fit to tule here, much less the world of finance or trade. I smell something rotten. It starts with the letter D and it ends with the letter C, and it's not Denmark.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it... No sleep for me tonight, but I must go and get ready for the day that is already here.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
160 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I watched Cris Matthews program and I didn't think Obama came off all that well.
olegramps
Apr 2015
#66
WRONG. Congress critters have had and will have NO role in drafting the agreement. period.
cali
Apr 2015
#73
The previous hearings did not include our elected representatives. They may
rhett o rick
Apr 2015
#102
With Boehner and McConnell in charge, I'm not sure I want to see any amendments
pampango
Apr 2015
#42
Well given that we now have total R rule that sounds good because they could amend it to make it
jwirr
Apr 2015
#62
In that sense I agree. We have seen too much of this in every bill on the floor. Example: The
jwirr
Apr 2015
#81
What? The 'legislation' has already been drafted without Congress. Now they want to push it through
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#29
It's already "drafted" by the State Dept and other Multi-Nationals. Congress has no hand this.
2banon
Apr 2015
#131
Fearless. Intelligent. Well spoken. Determined. His cute little laugh as he tried to dismiss her
libdem4life
Apr 2015
#5
You nailed it lib. How I love that woman! If only H> hada fraction of <E's gumption & genuineness.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Apr 2015
#28
Exactly. I lost respect for him there. I've been up and down and he's done some good things,
libdem4life
Apr 2015
#151
You have a good question but it is my understanding that they got to go into the room and read
jwirr
Apr 2015
#71
What? Have you been following this at all? It doesn't like it from your comment.
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#38
She explained very clearly that the Senators and Representatives who read it are...
hedda_foil
Apr 2015
#133
''If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it...
Octafish
Apr 2015
#11
Fast Track means that Congress gives up its right to negotiate this Trade Deal, and its role in our
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#49
+1. That's too much power to hand to any President. I don't care how much you trust them. n/t
winter is coming
Apr 2015
#93
I think the concern is that it would if opened up for amendments it become a fiasco..
DCBob
Apr 2015
#114
Where did you stand when Bush, at the same point in his administration, tried to Fast Track a Trade
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#50
Elizabeth has my vote if she wants it, but our republican congress will never "write an amendment
pampango
Apr 2015
#25
You are correct but a lot of them got stung by NAFTA and they equate the two. IF those of us who
jwirr
Apr 2015
#77
The fact that the republicans are all enthused about the TPP should be all the warning necessary..
truebrit71
Apr 2015
#34
Obama does a little bit over here, for the common folk, and a little bit over there for the rich.
YOHABLO
Apr 2015
#124
I don't like that throwback world. Too many lack a proper knowledge of history to judge
Enthusiast
Apr 2015
#141
Now we will hear that there isn't TIME to do that. It needs to go into effect NOW.
Spitfire of ATJ
Apr 2015
#52
If Warren would take a second to think about it, Congress could ask Obama and trade reps to go back
Hoyt
Apr 2015
#54
Thanks. Far from a RW troll. I wonder what folks think of the unfounded criticism of Obama?
Hoyt
Apr 2015
#78
No, Hoyt is a Democrat on Democratic Board. Skinner is a Hillary supporter.. you going to call him
Cha
Apr 2015
#119
Juror #1: I will vote to hide each and every post he contributes here to DU, from this point forward
pampango
Apr 2015
#95
The vast majority of the House Dems are also against fast tracking TPP. It's not just Warren...
think
Apr 2015
#60
Please stop posting facts, it makes people belonging to a loud but tiny minority very uncomfortable.
BeanMusical
Apr 2015
#90
Sorry, arguments defending the secrecy and fast-tracking of the TPP are straight up sycophancy
whatchamacallit
Apr 2015
#65
LOL, the "esteemed" DUer sounds clueless to me. You sound scared of Warren. She would kick...
Logical
Apr 2015
#121
Obama and the republicans are afraid that the Dems will want to include wage and safety protections
Doctor_J
Apr 2015
#127
In your opinion a Boehner-McConnell led congress will vote "to include wage and safety protections
pampango
Apr 2015
#145
in your opinion a law that huge numbers of dems are against should be passed?
Doctor_J
Apr 2015
#146
why is this not on Politics 2015 where is would get more exposure (stuff on GD moves off 1st pg fast
Bill USA
Apr 2015
#100
His references to opposition by the GOPers is soft, non confrontational and general...
Eleanors38
Apr 2015
#156
If FT is passed, FT will require a supermajority to remove a proposed "trade" agreement from FT
Faryn Balyncd
Apr 2015
#105
http://jarkesypolitical.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ObamaShhh4-e1358519562147.jpg
blkmusclmachine
Apr 2015
#129