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
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: Forget the DU created issues. How does Hillary not have an opinion on TPP? [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)125. FDR would have thought the US would be what modern Germany is. Highly-paid workers, strong unions,
an excellent safety net and a trade giant (70% of the German economy is trade) connected to the rest of the world.
I imagine that he could not have predicted that we would actually go back to the Coolidge/Hoover policies of low taxes on the rich, anti-union laws and attitudes, weak regulations and a poor safety net. And he would been shocked that liberals would blame our weak middle class and terrible income inequality on trade (23% of our economy or 1/3 that of Germany) which he promoted over republican objections rather than on all those regressive C/H policies that he worked so hard to reverse and have come back to haunt us now.
We do not need these multinational trade agreements. We should be free to set tariffs and protect our labor and environmental standards as we wish.
FDR would disagree. The reason he promoted "multinational trade agreements" was precisely because he knew that national governments, being political entities, will 'protect' their 'constituents' (either the common citizens or the rich and powerful in their country, depending on our 'pure' you view democracy in many countries). He believed that spending your political energy 'protecting' "US" Americans from "THEM" foreigners actually provides little 'protection' (witness the 1920's and its still historic level of income inequality) and leaves little energy to cooperate with those same other countries on issues of international importance.
Even in a "pure" democracy without undue corporate influence, people have the right to choose to join other people in organizations if they feel they will be beneficial. Support for the EU is quite high in Europe except on the political right which is a growing worry. On the right, they want their country to be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to whomever it wants without regard to what people in other countries think. The ghosts of Coolidge and Hoover would approve. FDR's, not so much.
We should be free as should other countries, as a people, to decide whether we want certain types of investments, certain types of exploitation of our resources, etc. or not.
Fair enough. And we should be free to join international organizations and sign international agreements when we think that is the best way to achieve those goals.
FDR and Truman had labor rights, business regulation, investment protection and a commitment to full employment in the International Trade Organization. (If the environment had been a big issue back then, it would have been in there too.) They believed international negotiation, agreement and implementation was the way to achieve those goals and bring the world together. To say the least, republicans fought them hard on this weakening of national sovereignty and won. When congress rejected US membership in the ITO, it died.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
126 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
Forget the DU created issues. How does Hillary not have an opinion on TPP? [View all]
morningfog
May 2015
OP
She didn't have a problem stepping on President Obama's foreign policy decisions.
frylock
May 2015
#11
Being a citizen means less to most politicians these days than being a shareholder. nt
raouldukelives
May 2015
#112
Because the money she's raising is from people who have a stake in its passage.
ibegurpard
May 2015
#10
A dangerous one - it is an immediate issue, and she has to say SOMETHING now..
eloydude
May 2015
#48
If Clinton thinks the TPA bill is no big deal and should be approved, let her SAY so.
Jim Lane
May 2015
#73
Bluntly, activists in our party are going insane for no reason and it's hard for her to respond to
Recursion
May 2015
#76
The problem with the XL pipeline is where it goes -- through really important farmland that
JDPriestly
May 2015
#102
We should end any agreement that allows corporations to sue any sovereign state in any
JDPriestly
May 2015
#115
Leaving NAFTA would leave us in the US/Canada FTA which preexisted NAFTA? If we drop out of that too
pampango
May 2015
#113
We should go back to unilateral trade agreements until we get our balance of payments system
JDPriestly
May 2015
#114
You do want to go back to the Coolidge/Hoover days? No WTO, no trade agreements,
pampango
May 2015
#117
I know A LOT about arbitration. It can be great for disputes between equals, such as two
JDPriestly
May 2015
#120
Europe has its problems. What country or continent does not? But they have the best income equality
pampango
May 2015
#123
We will never "go back" to the environment that existed at the time of Coolidge and Hoover.
JDPriestly
May 2015
#121
If we do what you suggest we would be well on our way. There was not GATT/WTO. There were no
pampango
May 2015
#124
FDR would have thought the US would be what modern Germany is. Highly-paid workers, strong unions,
pampango
May 2015
#125
I agree that the reason we, the US do not compete well or work together well with the international
JDPriestly
May 2015
#126
Obama is for it. Warren and Sanders oppose it. Hillary? Eh, she'll tell you after its too late.
morningfog
May 2015
#40
You're against restricting the Malaysian sex trade because Malaysian citizens want it to continue?
Recursion
May 2015
#77
She charges more than $17,000 and it takes longer for the larger checks to clear?
peecoolyour
May 2015
#19
Nobody will be able to get away with vague "move the country forward" platitudes this time around.
arcane1
May 2015
#35
Yeah, the voters over and over have signalled their preference for wonky issues-driven campaigns
Recursion
May 2015
#82
She supports the trade agreement. She just doesn't want to say so yet.
DisgustipatedinCA
May 2015
#22
She's waiting to evolve in the most politically expedient direction. Like she did on her IWR vote.
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2015
#33
The TPP is not finished, but she should come out for TPA and lobby House Democrats to get on board.
tritsofme
May 2015
#39
That does happen, yes. More importantly most paragraphs will have 7 or 8 versions running around
Recursion
May 2015
#51
Seeing that the current TPP "proposal" has Malaysia pissed and Japanese citizens suing Japan
eloydude
May 2015
#59
The Malaysian government also pissed off a lot of Malaysians by breaking up a slave ring
Recursion
May 2015
#62
If I were raising money for a liberal organization I'd probably come out against it too
Recursion
May 2015
#90
Because I'm a liberal Democrat. I've given labor and money to multiple D campaigns
Recursion
May 2015
#93
My principles won't do a damn thing for the environment, the poor, women, LGBTs, minorities ...
Recursion
May 2015
#95
Well it is logical to side step forming a concrete position on this issue right now during her
underahedgerow
May 2015
#66
She has an opinion that includes objectives any agreement presented to Congress must meet for her
Hoyt
May 2015
#74