Defend this, Defenders! President Obama speaks out on Trade Promotion Authority

[cali]

He wants it. He really, really wants it so we can all benefit from the wonders of the TPP. Oh, and look who the President is meeting with. He hasn't met with any stakeholders such as Unions, environmentalists, Internet freedom advocates or those who oppose the monopolies and price fixing of big pharma.



President Barack Obama on Thursday said he hoped to work with Republicans in Congress on a bipartisan bill supporting White House efforts to wrap up huge trade deals with 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region and the 28 nations of the European Union.

“We’re going to need Trade Promotion Authority,” Obama said in remarks to the President’s Export Council, which brings together top corporate leaders, Cabinet officials and members of Congress to discuss ways to expand trade.


The remarks came as the White House is trying to finish talks on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership with Japan, Vietnam and other Asia-Pacific countries by the end of the year.

“We are very far along in trying to get that deal done,” Obama said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/obama-trade-promotion-authority-97073.html#ixzz2fQN6RDPx

[intaglio]

1. Because protectionism works so well

yeah ...

[cali]

2. uh, being opposed to this obscenity is NOT the same as protectionism. duh.

Perhaps you don't know that we have trade agreements with every country in the TPP already. Perhaps you don't know much about the TPP.

[pampango]

6. You are right, cali.

I don't think we have trade agreements with every one of the countries in TPP, but with do with most of them. We have them with Australia, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Chile and Singapore. I don't think we have them with New Zealand, Japan, Vietnam, Peru or Malaysia.

Your point that the TPP is not mainly about tariffs is true.

[bowens43]

3. actually, it does work well.

[pampango]

4. No it does not. It did not work under republicans in the 1920's which is why FDR campaigned against

it, moved to reverse it during his administration and designed an open trading system for the post-WWII world.

The 1920's, under Coolidge and Hoover with republican congresses, were an era of high tariffs, low taxes, lax regulation and weak unions. The Roaring 20's also set a record for income inequality - it was 'roaring' for the 1% only. FDR dealt with the income equality with lower tariffs, higher/progressive taxes, tighter regulations and stronger unions. The same can work today and does in Europe.

[cali]

5. I'm not arguing for protectionism

I'm arguing against the FTA model. And it's not as if we don't have trade agreements with the nations in the TPP.

I know you're not addressing me here, but I wanted to say it's not an either/or thing.

[pampango]

7. I should wait a little longer to post my responses. See 6 above. :)

[AllyCat]

9. So right. Protectionism is NOT the same as TPP!

[winterpark]

65. I'm curious...Does anyone know what the senate dems position on this is? Warren? Sanders

the true progressives and the other progressives in name only?

[fasttense]

8. It kinda depends on what you mean by protectionism.

Protectionism is a trade policy slur usually used to denigrate tariffs. Currently the US has no meaningful tariffs in place. But it is also used to denigrate any condition that prevents multinational corporation from advancing fascist type controls on trade. It has been used as a slur against dumping, minimum wage laws, environmental laws and buy American laws.

The real problem with using the slur protectionism is that you really need to have some kind of trade policy to compare changes to. The US has NO TRADE POLICY. Unless of course you consider random rules, to destroy local businesses and allow fascist type rule secretly placed into WTO agreements, a kind of trade policy.

[whathehell]

107. I never understood how a nation's "protecting" its workers was bad..Europe protects theirs.

[pampango]

110. How does "Europe protect theirs?" Their tariffs are low. They have more "free trade" than we do.

They do have stronger unions, higher/progressive taxes and a stronger safety net.

[whathehell]

123. Beyond what you've already mentioned, by restricting employment to EU members only..

They don't, like the US, subvert their own "citizens first" laws by using things like the HI-B Visa like a rubber stamp.

[grahamhgreen]

13. Tariffs work! They funded our govt for the first 125 years.

[GoneFishin]

25. +1000. Thom Hartman speaks often on this. Tariffs were a practical and working

mechanism for funding the federal government before there was an income tax. Corporations could outsource jobs, but they had to pay a tax in kind to do so. With the current system, corporations solicit bids from the poorest of the poor around the world to take our jobs. It's a stupid system, but it's wonderful if you think slave labor is a good thing.

[pampango]

27. Until they were replaced by the income tax - a progressive victory.

The Hidden Progressive History of Income Tax Replacing Tariffs and Excise Taxes

Tariffs and excise taxes meant that almost the entirety of federal tax revenue came from the poor while the rich paid virtually nothing. This spawned enormous outrage.

Everyday Americans hated the tax system of the Gilded Age. The federal government gathered taxes in two ways. First, it placed high tariff rates on imports. These import taxes protected American industries from competition. This allowed companies to charge high prices on products that the working class needed to survive while also protecting the monopolies that controlled their everyday lives. Second, the government had high excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, two products used heavily by the American working class.

Today, we are supposed to hate paying taxes. They are our “tax burden.” We vote for politicians who will reduce our taxes, even if that means destroying the welfare state. Conservatives’ century-long war against taxes has paid off by convincing everyday Americans to think taxes are a horrible thing that pays for government waste.

Our ancestors knew this was not true. The income tax was the most popular economic justice movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. This truly grassroots movement forced politicians to act in order to stay in office, leading to the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. That’s right, the income tax was so popular that the nation passed a constitutional amendment so that the right-wing Supreme Court couldn’t overturn it.

The income tax became such an overwhelming political movement during the 1890s that Congress, despite so many members' close relationship with the plutocracy, passed an income tax law that would have forced the rich to begin paying income taxes for the first time since 1870. ... But the Supreme Court in 1895 declared the federal income tax unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company. This was the same set of judges who ruled segregation constitutional in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson...

http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/the-hidden-progressive-history-of-income-tax,51754f28da27f5d9d0a7ea44/1

Progressives turned to the income tax to fund the government to get away from the reliance on tariffs and excise taxes (we call them sin taxes today) on alcohol and tobacco products which hurt the poor and workers rather than the rich.

Perhaps not surprisingly, 8 years after the amendment was ratified republicans came to power and promptly raised tariffs 3 times (1921, 1922 and 1930) and cut the new income taxes. The result was that the US income inequality got progressively worse until it reached historic proportions by the end of the decade.

Raising tariffs did not make the US a more equitable nation. Which is why FDR went about reducing them while he was in office and devised institutions (like GATT) that would make it difficult for future politicians to raise tariffs. FDR knew that a fair society requires progressive taxation, strong unions, a decent safety net and effective corporate regulation - not high tariffs.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Still need tariff's, or your jobs drain away to the lowest overseas bidder.

An unhealthy situation for us, AND them, as long as they have weak environmental/labor laws.

Edit: oh fuck me, maybe I should just shut up if I can't even spell it...

[grahamhgreen]

89. Might be true if the wealthy and their corporations are actually paying taxes, instead of getting

Rebates like they are today.

Fact is, tariffs protect American jobs. Higher priced American goods means higher wages and a thriving middle class.

The TPP will cause the loss of jobs and lower wages here at home, can we agree on that?

[pampango]

111. "tariffs protect American jobs." That's what republicans said in the 1920's.

They increased tariffs 3 times (1921, 1924 and 1930). The result - lots of profits and bonuses for the 1% (until 1929 anyway) and the most unequal distribution of income in our history.

And if tariffs were good for American jobs, FDR would have maintained them in the 1930's (he didn't) and would not have promoted a low-tariff world trading structure for the post-WWII world.

[grahamhgreen]

126. If these costly trade agreements were good for Americans, we'd be thriving, not starving.

[L0oniX]

141. ^^^^this^^^^

[pampango]

158. OR if we had progressive taxes, strong unions and an effective safety net,

we'd be thriving, not starving.

Trade is a small part of our economy (about 20%). Every other developed country has more trade (40% to 80% of the economy) than we do. Of course, they have more progressive taxes, stronger unions and better safety nets, as well as much better income distributions and stronger middle classes.

Progressive countries are not progressive because they trade. They are progressive because of their tax policy, pro-union laws and culture and a commitment to their safety net. Progressive countries trade more than we do because they see an openness to other countries as consistent with their world view and their domestic policies.

If they thought that trade was inconsistent with all of their other liberal policies, they would minimize it. They don't.

[grahamhgreen]

159. HAHA. Is your computer made in america? Shoes? Clothes? No, costly trade agreements cost jobs.

[pampango]

160. It is true than when countries trade, you end up buying things made in other countries.

If trade agreements were the cause of economic pain, progressive countries would avoid them and produce everything domestically. That is not what they actually do. They trade more than we do and their economies and middle classes are much stronger than ours.

[grahamhgreen]

162. It's exactly what Germany does. If costly trade agreements work, 50,000 factories would not

Have moved to China in the last 10 years!

[pampango]

165. What is "what Germany does"? Trade is 80% of their economy yet they have stronger unions,

a stronger middle class and a very equitable distribution of income compared to the US where trade is a small part of the economy. If trade devastated unions and the middle class, Germany would be a wasteland. It is the opposite.

We don't have a trade agreement with China so how does our trade imbalance with it reflect on trade agreements?

[grahamhgreen]

166. In 2012 Germany exported goods worth 1 097.3 billion euro and imported goods worth 909.1 b euro

https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEconomyEnvironment/ForeignTrade/OverallDevelopment/Current.html



Meantime:






We do have a trade agreement with China it's called: Permanent normal trade relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_normal_trade_relations

It should be repealed.


Trade is good - when you're the exporter

Again, if costly trade agreements were good for the US, the middle class would be thriving.


That's how I see it!

[pampango]

170. Exactly. And Germany does it with strong unions and high wages.

"Permanent normal trade relations" allowed China to enter the WTO. Now that it is a member, "Permanent normal trade relations" is meaningless. If you "repealed" it, nothing would change. Neither the US nor any other country can simply kick any country it wants out of the WTO. Nor can we kick any country we want out of the UN or the WHO or any other international organization.

If regressive taxes were good for the US, the middle class would be thriving. If a shredded safety net was good for the US, the middle class would be thriving. If weak unions were good for the US, the middle class would be thriving. If weak corporate regulation was good for the US, the middle class would be thriving.

Progressive countries view open trade as a liberal policy, but they also believe progressive taxes, a strong safety net, effective corporate regulation and strong unions are liberal policies. Germany does not "race to the bottom". It has strong unions and high wages.

As you know, China opposes the TPP. They are afraid that it will have provisions for labor rights and high environmental standards.

[grahamhgreen]

167. In 2012 Germany exported goods worth 1 097.3 billion euro and imported goods worth 909.1 b euro

https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/NationalEconomyEnvironment/ForeignTrade/OverallDevelopment/Current.html



Meantime:






We do have a trade agreement with China it's called: Permanent normal trade relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_normal_trade_relations

It should be repealed.


Trade is good - when you're the exporter

Again, if costly trade agreements were good for the US, the middle class would be thriving.


That's how I see it!

[MNBrewer]

149. When has it been otherwise?

that the 1% hasn't done well?

[pampango]

161. True. But there is "doing well" and "doing 'obscenely' well" at the expense of the middle class as

was the case in the 1920's.

The lesson seems to me to be that "obscene" prosperity for the 1% can occur with high tariffs (1920's) or low tariffs (today), but they do not occur (in the past or present; here or anywhere else in the world) with strong unions, progressive taxes, effective regulations and a working safety net.

[FreakinDJ]

17. It certainly Does work well for China and S. Korea

and that is why our Trade Agreements with those countries are so fucking lopsided.

China's 20% Tariff compared to America's 2% Tariff

S. Korea's Unlimited Auto-Export Quota compared to America's 25,000 vehicle limits

[bemildred]

35. Protecting us is the governments job.

They go on about it all day long.

[grahamhgreen]

90. Funny how they want to protect us, but not our livelihoods, LOL

[sabrina 1]

66. Who is talking about protectionism? Could you point it out please??

[whathehell]

106. It's waaaay more than that..

Check out this link:

http://www.exposethetpp.org/

[L0oniX]

140. "protectionism" for who? International corporations?

[MNBrewer]

148. Look over there at the shiny object!

it's a silver plated straw man!

[Katashi_itto]

155. NAFTA casued the loss of 94,000 US factories. Protect that.

[pinboy3niner]

10. "Defend this, Defenders!" is superfluous and inflammatory

You OP would be better without that.

[grahamhgreen]

12. The TPP is superfluous and inflammatory, LOL

[pinboy3niner]

16. LOL!

Nice!

[L0oniX]

142. Must have been mixed up with BTP ...Bad Toilet Paper

[cali]

14. yes it is. but it gets eyes and comments and raising visibility on this

is what I'm going for.

[pinboy3niner]

20. That's actually a fair point

Though I'm probably not the only one here who doesn't like seeing a good OP compromised because it can't resist departing from the substance to take a shot at the faction or a faction that holds a different position.

What, you couldn't just work in Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus to get attention?

[treestar]

63. agreed, and there is no framing of an issue

TPP = bad. That's it. It will lead to fewer jobs and lower wages. Why? We are expected to swallow the conclusions whole.

This stuff is not that easy to understand and reducing it to slogans doesn't help.

[cali]

79. That is an absolutely spurious claim

I have posted scores of ops with links and details as to why it's bad. Specifics regarding Copyright, Pharmaceuticals, the investor-state arbitration process which was leaked last summer and is essentially a clone of the process in NAFTA and other FTAs.

There are specifics. They are available. No, there aren't enough, but for instance the business about Tobacco- you can read the WaPo editorial of 9/18 on what's happened with that.

And we know a great deal about who is leading the effort in the U.S. and what their priorities are.

YOU are the one too biased or not motivated enough to read and research.

[treestar]

131. well you may have researched it

but that doesn't mean we would conclude the same as you would.

Also I'd like to see something objective on the matter - something addressing both sides of the issue, not the rantings of the already convinced.

[grahamhgreen]

11. Simply means fewer jobs, lower wages.

[djean111]

15. Also higher drug prices, and more corporations can sue a country's taxpayers when a rule or

regulation prevents them from extracting the maximum profit.

[GoneFishin]

28. And it removes accountability for our politicians. It gives them cover to support a

corporatist agenda which hurts U.S. citizens, because they can say their hands are tied because of TPP.

[TBF]

22. The goal is lower wages worldwide -

and TPP will accomplish that along with a host of other problems.

In theory I have no problem with open borders, but that would be under a socialist regime. What TPP will promote in this time and place is increased profits for the multinationals while wages decrease.

[whathehell]

108. Yup, The Wet Dream of The RW One Percent: A Two Tier Society of Them & Their Slaves

They don't need no stinkin' Middle Class.

[TBF]

109. Exactly. nt

[gulliver]

18. I'll have to just go to with Obama on this one.

Sorry, but some internet person carping about some "stakeholders" allegedly not being consulted has no impact on me whatsoever. I would need to see some grain of a valid argument.

[solarhydrocan]

23. citizen.org - TPP: Corporate Power Tool of the 1%

Here are a few arguments. Some will consider them "valid", some not.

TPP: Corporate Power Tool of the 1%

Have you heard? The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “free trade” agreement is a stealthy policy being pressed by corporate America, a dream of the 1 percent, that in one blow could:

offshore millions of American jobs,
free the banksters from oversight,
ban Buy America policies needed to create green jobs and rebuild our economy,
decrease access to medicine,
flood the U.S. with unsafe food and products,
and empower corporations to attack our environmental and health safeguards.

http://www.citizen.org/tpp

Obama didn't like NAFTA before he did

Obama's Promise to renegotiate NAFTA

Why did he change his mind?

[TBF]

24. You need to do some research -

unless you are in the top 1% with tons of investments to make money on (and are not dependent on your wages) this is not a good deal for you.

[pampango]

29. Congress will have to vote on it just like they have every other trade agreement.

And they will see it before they vote on it.

"Fast track" refers to not bring able to make changes to it and just having to vote Yes or No. I don't think Obama is going to get "fast track" from congress, particularly in the House which is "Obama-wary" to say the least. It is right to be concerned but I think it is not going to happen.

[CrispyQ]

50. "And they will see it before they vote on it."

They might see it, but will they read it?

[pa28]

101. It also requires a quick vote and eliminates filibuster.

AKA railroading it through.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. It's utterly dishonest to make a trade agreement involving workers without consuling

labor and Unions about it. It is immoral, corrupt, fetid to bind others to an agreement they have not agreed to.

[Democracyinkind]

41. You'd need to study the actual documents.

If that is too much work, what's the sense in posting?

[CrispyQ]

51. Then do your own research, but trusting Obama is a stupid as trusting an unknown internet source.

The TPP is not good for the average person, world wide, not just here. It's just that our middle class has so much further to fall to "catch up." I won't even go into the impact this travesty will have on our environment - our global environment. I watched "Chasing Ice" last night & we are soooooooo fucked. TPTB know this too, & are hoarding & building as big a cushion as they possibly can, cuz they know what's coming.

[WCLinolVir]

59. Have you even read part of it?

[appal_jack]

73. You mis-spelled your user name: it's g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e.

You mis-spelled your user name: it's spelled "g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e."

Despite what you may have been told by some 'higher authority' to which you are so ready to defer, 'gullible' is actually in the dictionary, so please feel free to look it up if you need to.

Oh, never mind, I'll save you the trouble:

gul·li·ble
ˈgələbəl/
adjective
adjective: gullible

1.
easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
"an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money"
synonyms: credulous, naive, overtrusting, overtrustful, easily deceived, easily taken in, exploitable, dupable, impressionable, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, unwary, ingenuous, innocent, inexperienced, unworldly, green;
informalwet behind the ears, born yesterday
"he was a swindler who preyed on gullible elderly widows"

-app

[frylock]

98. honestly, i think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes

[cantbeserious]

19. Selling Out The Middle Class One Trade Deal At A Time

eom

[truebluegreen]

21. If deals have to be made in secret, they are bad deals.

By all means, let's give corporations the right to trump national standards and laws.

[baldguy]

32. Irrational knee-jerk Obama haters hate everything Obama does.

How long before we see a "Defend this, Defenders!" post on DO decrying Obama's stance on gay rights, or his being opposed to the gold standard.

I'm waiting to see someone on DU demand to see his REAL birth certificate.

[djean111]

34. Too bad you cannot separate Obama's various policies from Obama himself.

Are you seriously comparing the TPP to gay rights or the gold standard?
I think your post is more inflammatory than the OP, honestly. And incorrect.
Also, labeling DU members as birthers does not help out the Democratic party or DU at all.
This all or nothing stance some have is devoid of critical thinking, and is more tea party-ish or freeper-ish than questioning individual policies.
Falling back on "you must hate Obama" lacks logic.

[baldguy]

46. Obama's supporters aren't the ones who can't separate the man from his policies

The OP is saying "Defend this!" - not me.

Obama haters on the Left and the Right are of a kind - blind to reality & devoid of the critical thinking and logic you claim to advocate.

[djean111]

52. I don't hate Obama. There is no point to hating or loving him, he is a politician.

Conflating hating his policies with hating the man deliberately misses the point.

[enlightenment]

55. Yes, cali's OP title

was inflammatory - and apparently, designed to elicit response and reaction. But the idea is to respond to the message rather than attacking the messenger because you don't like the title of the post.

Rather than simply responding with huffy indignation, why don't you try responding to what the message is discussing? If you believe that the President should be trusted on the issue of the TPP, just say so. If you think he's getting ready to give away the farm, say so. If you have an opinion on the ISSUE that was raised in the OP, state it.

What you're doing is absurd. You are rejecting any discussion of the issue because you don't like the words that were used to introduce it - and claiming that those words mean the OP is devoid of logic or critical thinking.

That response is in itself completely illogical and bears no resemblance to critical thought in any way, shape, or form.

I happen to agree with cali on the issue. The TPP is a bad plan for the US. The process that is being used to reach agreement is antithetical to democratic principles - and the idea that Congress will "save" us is wishful thinking.

[baldguy]

71. I'd like to see someone point out that knee-jerk Obama hating from the Left is absurd.

But Obama haters have too many cheerleaders & sheep that follow them. Too much like the Teabaggers for my taste.

[Dragonfli]

82. I agree! In fact so much so that I did exactly that! You are right, the left IS absurd

Only true Democrats (conservative ones from the Right) are to be trusted, conservadems are pragmatic, the absurd ones are those paleo- Democrats that are left rather than right. I wrote an OP about the Obama haters that have been infested the party for several decades, sort of like sleeper cells, I promote the few proud Real Democrats that know that the left is bad and the right good. Finally an OP for your POV.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023699985

[enlightenment]

86. Again, can we stick to the TOPIC of the OP?

Do you have an opinion on the TPP?

[Democracyinkind]

118. No, he doesn't.

[Jim Lane]

116. Are there irrational knee-jerk Obama lovers who love (or at least tolerate) everything Obama does?

Or is the irrationality and knee-jerk reaction to be found only on one side of, for example, the TPP debate?

Related question: Is everyone who opposes the TPP an irrational knee-jerk Obama hater?

[cali]

124. Oh yes they are. I have never said anything hateful about the President or even close

I don't try to second guess WHY he does something. I disagree with him on policy, I say so and I'm specific.

I don't hate Obama. Far from it; I like him. I find it painful to be opposed to some of his policies.

And yes, there are people here with a "The President knows all" mentality.

[Democracyinkind]

42. Because being against TPP is as reasonable as being a birther...

Do you actually consider that an argument? It's simply false.

Did you consider those who were against NAFTA Clinton- haters?

[WCLinolVir]

60. Straw man! False equivalency! Re-direction.

[LondonReign2]

88. Do you support the TPP?

[grahamhgreen]

91. HAHAHA! Remember when he was against gay marriage, or you forget already?

[LondonReign2]

103. C'mon baldguy, tell us:

Do you support the TPP?

[Union Scribe]

117. Ever going to come back and address the issue?

Several people have asked you plainly if you support this sickening agreement. Do you?

[LondonReign2]

127. Still won't say if you support the TPP?

No? I guess you just wanted to whine that people were being so mean to your President who is supporting a horrible policy proposal.

That's what happens when your support is a cult of personality; you end up reflexively supporting embarrassingly bad decisions without even examining what the person is doing.

[baldguy]

132. I apologize if my personal life doesn't fit into your schedule of whiny ineffectual blathering.

But I must also thank you for making DU just a little more like Freereupblic every day.

This is for you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023707888

[Union Scribe]

135. So you stopped in for some insults but not to answer?

It's a really simple question. "Yes" or "No" or even "I don't know" would have taken up far less of your personal life than attacking the poster.

[LondonReign2]

139. Do you support the TPP?

[baldguy]

157. Do you support Rand Paul for President?

[LondonReign2]

164. No, of course not. Do you support the TPP?

It's a simple yes or no answer. When the OP started this thread she clearly stated she didn't support the TPP. You came on and complained about that...so do you support it then?

[baldguy]

169. Well, you see Rand Paul doesn't support the TPP either.

Therefore, by your own standards - and by those of the OP & all the other Obama haters here - you all must be Rand Paul supporters.

So, you're either a liar to say that you don't support Rand Paul, or you're a fool to accept the accusations posted endlessly on DU that Obama is a fascist & that people who support him are cultish dupes.

So, which are you?

[LondonReign2]

172. But do you support the TPP?

Really, its an exceedingly simple question. Do you or don't you?

[baldguy]

173. Are you a liar or a fool?

Really, its an exceedingly simple question.

[LondonReign2]

174. Do you support the TPP?

You've proven you're exceptionally bad at logic, but even you know that setting up a false dichotomy is stupid I would suspect. And I've already answered that of course I don't support the Pauls. (The fact that you folks have latched on to the Pauls as some sort of boogeymen is astonishing; no one here supports them).

So answer the simple question: Do you support the TPP?

Why is it so hard to answer that?

[baldguy]

175. Could it be you're both?

Yeah, that's it.

[LondonReign2]

176. Do you support the TPP? Could it be you're too chicken to answer?

You're really good at childish name-calling, but can't answer a simple quetsion: Do you support the TPP?

[baldguy]

177. Sorry to shatter your dreams but Obama isn't a fascist dictator & Rand Paul will never be President.

My question has been answered.

[LondonReign2]

179. Do you support the TPP?

I don't consider Obama a fascist dictator and Rand Paul would be a disaster. But you already knew those were my posiitons, you're simply despearate to deflect the question.

But I understand why you refuse to answer the simple question.

On the one hand you probably know how awful TPP is, and you don't want to go on record supporting that, and that's understandable. On the other hand, to admit that you are against it would mean going against The One True Leader, and there is absolutely no way you possibly bring yourself to do that, and that's just sad.

[GoneFishin]

33. The making of a fascist world order. It is consistent with his treatment of corporations

for his time as POTUS. He sat silent during egregious behavior by Wall Street, BP, Scott Walker (union busting), Rahm Emanuel (school privatization), and it goes on and on. His words are wonderful, but look at his actions.

[mtasselin]

40. he

The president is doing just what the corporations want him to do, once in a great while he stands up for the American people for his legacy, but he doesn't give a shit about the American people.

[GoneFishin]

45. Yep. DOMA etc. are great. But those are dog bones he can throw our way without

interfering with the corporate looting.

[GoneFishin]

47. +1000.

[ProSense]

48. "I voted for him twice, I think he is a horrible Democratic president..."

"Stop with the accusations that just because someone doesn't agree with the president, and in this case any "real progressive" shouldn't IMO, somehow doesn't want democrats in office.

I voted for him twice, I think he is a horrible Democratic president, and I am a Democrat whether you like it or lot."

"Accusations"? Did you read the OP title?

Who was your favorite "Democratic president"?

You think "real progressive" shouldn't agree with the President on anything?

What's a "real progressive"?

Welcome to DU.

[CrispyQ]

54. Oh, you're just jealous, cuz Pro didn't provide lots of pretty blue links like usual.

Welcome to DU, Tiredofthesame!

~from CrispyQ, a member of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

[bobduca]

69. +1000

The jig is up, but apparently her gig is not up yet.

[ProSense]

70. Hey,

"Pro's just mad at me because he/she had a LLLLOOONNNGGGG string of blue links the other day about home care workers rights on a thread about Bernie Sanders calling out Obama. It was 9 hours later and not one response. And I got snarky and replied to it pointing out that fact, which I know I shouldn't have done. I just couldn't help myself."

....I know you aren't going to see this, but your attempted familarity and thinking fits right in with the rest of the self-righteous nonsense. Up until I responded to your comment, I had no idea you were even a member of this forum.

So it's interesting that you think I'm "mad" at you.

[ProSense]

77. "You know exactly who I am..."

"You know exactly who I am and what I am talking about because being an obstructionist on this forum is your fucking job."

Welcome back?

[ProSense]

81. I should have said,

welcome back to DU.

[William769]

85. Another one bites the dust.

[ProSense]

61. LOL!

[cali]

58. oh boohoohoo.

if you don't like the title that's a great fucking reason not to change it.

[ProSense]

62. "if you don't like the title that's a great fucking reason not to change it."

Who asked you to "change it"?

It's typical you.

[cali]

68. Someone upthread suggested it. I thought about it. try reading, pro.

[grahamhgreen]

92. I define real progressives as the people your think tank targets, LOL

[mtasselin]

38. if

If this is such a great agreement, why is it being done in the darkness of night. Why is this agreement to remain secret for four years, why because everyone in office will be gone by the time the American people find out that the world corporations own the USA and it is know longer "We the People" but they the corporations. I could go on but this whole thing sickens me, Wake Up America.

[CrispyQ]

56. We the People, they the corporations . . .

there's a making of a good bumper sticker in there.

[WillyT]

39. K & R !!!

[Jefferson23]

44. Perverse, this is so off the charts, shameful.

snip* But those engaging in these trade negotiations should be forewarned: the US is committed to a lack of transparency.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/transatlantic-and-transpacific-free-trade-trouble-by-joseph-e--stiglitz

[woo me with science]

53. The end of the Open Internet

https://openmedia.org/blog/TPPAction


The TPP is being negotiated in near-total secrecy - unless you are one of 600 Big Industry lobbyist ‘advisors’ and un-elected bureaucrats invited to participate in the process. Leaked drafts of the agreement obtained by public interest organizations show that the TPP would end the open Internet as we know it and would break out digital future. Specifically, the agreement includes an Intellectual Property chapter that would criminalize your online activity, invade your privacy, and cost you money.
 
According to experts at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, normal online activities “could lead you to be cut off from the Internet, have your computer seized, be fined up to $150,000, or even land you in prison.”
 
The truth is, the TPP would never pass with the whole world watching - that’s why they’re negotiating it in secret. Those few public representatives who have seen the text are sounding the alarm - U.S. Congressman Alan Grayson is one of the few public officials who has seen the draft negotiating text. Rep. Grayson commented:
 
"Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty. And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why....It is ironic in a way that the government thinks it's all right to have a record of every single call that an American makes, but not all right for an American citizen to know what sovereign powers the government is negotiating away."

[randome]

64. What complex trade agreements are EVER negotiated in public?

This is a democracy. None of us get a vote on this. Our representatives do.

You know what would happen if every detail of this agreement was put to a public vote? We would have Republicans insisting on abortion sub-treaties in addition to every other politician trying to make his or her mark on it.

The process would drag out for years and result in nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[bobduca]

75. Trust in the corporations who are privy to the deals

[TheKentuckian]

171. When was the last one that brought more prosperity to the majority of Americans?

[BuelahWitch]

150. Thanks for the link

That's some scary shit there!

[WCLinolVir]

57. But didn't you see the photo of the pres with a little kid?

hard not to like such a guy. Except when he is busy working for his 1% overlords.

[polichick]

97. So true - he is very likeable..

and that means some folks don't pay much attention to what he's doing for the 1%

[Marr]

72. So far, the defenses range from

"I trust Him" to the always-popular, "this is totally normal and nothing to worry about".

[woo me with science]

78. Don't forget the hopeful gem under my post.

If we don't allow the TPP to pass, NOTHING WILL GET DONE!

[Marr]

84. lol

Hey, letting 600 big business interests negotiate a trade deal amongst themselves, while excluding labor and environmental interests-- not to mention the public... that's just how representative government works, right?

[MisterP]

104. "looking forward and not back on war crimes is the compassionate move"

[GeorgeGist]

76. ACA vs. TPP

If only one can win, which will it be?

[ecstatic]

83. What a great way to get an intelligent discussion started

Not.

ETA: I will read the article later, but I think people need to stop the juvenile name calling. It's really divisive. Besides, there is no such thing as a monolithic group of Obama defenders. There are times when you might agree with the administration and I don't, and vice versa. It would be silly for me to call you a "defender" because of your agreement with certain issues.

It's possible that some confusion stems from the fact that there is a pretty consistent group of posters here who think the President deserves respect, and maybe even the benefit of doubt on a democratic board. That's different than agreeing with everything the administration does. We're mature enough to disagree with the president on various issues without resorting to character attacks, threats to stay home during elections, etc.

[Demit]

93. I took it that the OP was calling out to defenders of the TPP to step up & defend it.

If you are not a defender of the policy, then she wouldn't have been talking to you.

And in the category of juvenile name calling: Juveniles call one another things like "poopyhead." "Defender" seems pretty mild to me.

[TheKentuckian]

102. Disagreement accompanied by promotion, defense, or silence in solidarity is agreement.

That isn't some grand maturity but rather towering intellectual dishonesty.

If folks were as keen on resolving problems as they are on turd polishing we would be able to apply meaningful pressure on any number of issues. You set up a paradigm where disagreement has absolutely no connection to consequence and by definition there is no need to ever come closer to agreement, not even as a carrot versus a stick because there is no enticement either.

I think folks with this mentality need to focus on sports and even that may be too vigorous should any value actually be placed on winning games. Perhaps a fan club would be more appropriate.

There is zero power in not being able to say no, less than that when you are automatically at yes. What possible benefit comes from negotiating with yes men? Even if there was such, who would have the time to waste when you have to deal with reeling in the fish that aren't in the boat and keeping the sharks at bay?

[Number23]

112. You are exactly right. And now that so many bashers have been proven wrong on issue after issue

Drama after drama, some have decided to start OPENLY harassing the president's supporters on this web site. Noticed how half the threads from these folks are about other DUers and nothing else?

Some have even started posting thesis level dissertations on smiley use by certain posters. I would be embarrassed to be so open about the fact that I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time than type post after post ofter post about how some folks use the smiley as a substitution for discussion. Even if that was true, then what the hell does that say about the folks that feel compelled to spend time actually discussing the use of that smiley? What are those stupid conversations "substitutions" for?? These folks have NOTHING and they know it.

"Defend this defenders!" I mean that is just about the most juvenile, pointless thing I've seen in a long time around here. And that is truly saying something.

[Democracyinkind]

119. Did the juvenility keep you from telling us why the TPP is a good idea?

Seems like it. Now isn't that sad...

[Number23]

133. The behavior of so many posters here keep lots of conversations from even getting started

And yes, the made up word "juvenility" explains it perfectly and yes, it is very sad. Particularly for the owners of this web site who seem as sick of this crap as so many other of the president's supporters.

[Democracyinkind]

134. Please take the time to enlighten us about how great TPP is.

Don't expect to be taken seriously if you keep showing up in these threads with nothing but metaish comments - I know for a fact that the owners of DU prefer content over meta.

And you might want to contact Merriam Webster, they seem to disagree about the made-up-ness of the word.

[Number23]

137. You're right!! Imagine that

juvenility is a word.

As for TPP, it's not something I've read much about. Sorry to diffuse your obvious and desperate need for confrontation right now.

[Democracyinkind]

138. I really can't wait for someone to explain TPP's greatness to me.

And help me out here - are you claiming that the word doesn't exist? I get that Americans don't use it often, but you're the first person I meet that claims it doesn't exist. You even made me look it up in a dictionary - why is it in there if I'm making it up? Isn't that unusual for a made- up word?

[L0oniX]

143. So yea why not ask the question in the BOG ...and get banned for it.

[Democracyinkind]

151. Lol, sad, funny, and true.

I don't know if there's anyone left who could even post a thread like that in there.

[woo me with science]

87. Cali, thank you for your tireless posting about TPP.

They cannot be allowed to get away with this.

[great white snark]

94. Nobody is at your beck and call. Hate on that haters.

And your black and white simple slogan thinking is better suited to be ingested by the people who appreciate your constant posts.

[cali]

96. huh? who said anyone was at my beck and call?

I realize you have an extremely advanced case of OADS, but please try not post blatantly false stuff.

Whatever else I am- grumpy, impatient with stupidity, a bit of an iconoclast- I don't speak in slogans or cliches. I don't post merely simplistic things. I don't buy my ideas or opinions wholesale.

I do research. I post the fruits of said research. My opinions are not based on adoration for a political figure or partisanship.

Pity you can barely pen anything other than hater, hater, hater, darling.

[frylock]

99. maybe pics of the first family's dog is more your speed.

[LondonReign2]

100. Do you support the TPP?

[LondonReign2]

113. So why won't you answer? Do you support the TPP?

[Union Scribe]

136. Do you support TPP? C'mon it's not that difficult. nt

[frylock]

95. HE'S NOT THE NOMINEE!!1

or something.

[pa28]

105. He's going to need Republican support and he'll probably have to bargain for it.

The Korea FTA passed the house with 219 R's and only 59 Democrats.

That's right only 59 Democrats.

I suspect he'll have an equally difficult time with the TPP provided we have enough time to build opposition.

[bvar22]

114. Thanks to Cali, other "Fringle Left" posters here at DU, and the "Professional Left"..

... in the alternative Media,
this IS getting attention.

We scored two WINS in getting Summers shit-canned and slowing the Rush to War long enough for International Diplomacy to beat the Cruise Missiles to Syria.
Keep the ball rolling and stop this LATEST betrayal of the American Working Class.

Don't "Just Sat NO to the TPP/TTIP",
Scream it to the 4 winds, and let your reps KNOW that a vote FOR TTP/TTIP will cost them.


Sorry, Virginia.
There is no such thing as "Free Trade", "Free Markets", or an "Invisible Hand".
The RICH made that shit up to Bust Unions, Lower Wages, and get MORE MONEY for themselves.


[font size=4]The Graven Image on the altar
of the new Church of Free Trade.[/font]

Like most religions, the Church of Free Trade requires Blind Faith in an All Powerful Invisible Deity (the Invisible Hand) for which no proof exists.
In fact, all evidence collected since 1992 indicates that "Free Trade" only benefits the Very RICH.

The Top .01 Percent Reach New Heights
http://www.demos.org/blog/9/13/13/top-01-percent-reach-new-heights

US Wealthy Have Biggest Piece of Pie Ever Recorded
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/11-6

Rates of unemployment for families earning less than $20,000 - have topped 21 percent
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JOBS_GAP_RICH_AND_POOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-16-08-11-23


Gallop: 20.4% of Americans now “going hungry”.
http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/12/20460846-1-in-5-americans-struggling-to-put-food-on-the-table?lite

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

Income gap widest ever: 95 Percent of Recovery Income Gains Have Gone to the Top 1 Percent
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/10/one_percent_recovery_95_percent_of_gains_have_gone_to_the_top_one_percent.html

40% Of Americans Now Make Less Than 1968 Minimum Wage
http://seeingtheforest.com/40-of-americans-now-make-less-than-1968-minimum-wage/



If "Free Trade" is so good for America,
why has the American Working Class been destroyed ?


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[L0oniX]

145. DUrec ...this should be its own op.

[KoKo]

146. I love it! "The Church of Free Trade!" We will be the Victims on the Altar!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

115. He may want it, but if we have anything to say about it, HE WON'T GET IT.

[Democracyinkind]

120. "The TPP is double plus good but I won't tell you why because you hate Obama and are so juvenile"

Seems to be about all that the potential defenders brought up so far.

[L0oniX]

144. ^^^^this^^^^

[B Calm]

121. He originally campaigned that he would look into NAFTA,

he must have thought it was so damn great that he came out with another trade deal.

[Celefin]

122. Thanks Cali. Now, everyone who supports the TPP please raise their hand. And state why.

And don't state why you trust Obama. Just the TPP. Support or not. And why. Please proceed.

[xiamiam]

125. k and r...nt

[fadedrose]

128. Went to whitehouse.gov to send an email

telling President how hard it was to defend his position on TPP when everybody where I post knows all about the plan and they say it sucks.

As soon as I got to the site, "A Better Bargain for the Middle Class," pops up and tells me to read his plan...

Part of it says this:

[div]•End incentives to ship jobs overseas
•Lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs in the U.S.
•Lower tax rates for manufacturers
•Cut taxes for small businesses
Create good jobs
•Put construction workers on the job rebuilding our infrastructure
•Expand our network of high-tech manufacturing hubs
•Strengthen job training at community colleges
•Raise the minimum wage

[/div class="excerpt"]

Since he has this Plan all over his cover page on the white house site, he must be getting some flak over TPP.

Anyways, I am going to send this thread, and ask the person who reads the WH emails to explain to my dear President that it is very difficult to defend him and his policy, and nobody is more loyal to him than I am. Also, cali knows her stuff, whether I agree or not. She doesn't make stuff up, but neither does the President till now. Both tend to embellish stuff.

[woo me with science]

129. kick

[woo me with science]

130. kick

[bvar22]

147. I'll kick again, because this is so damned improtant.

I will also challenge those "ConservativeDemocrats" and supporters to tell us WHY this new Free Trade deal is GOOD for America's Working Class,
and WHY we should NOT challenge our President on this policy?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Go ahead ConservativeDemocrats.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Waiting.....or don't you do policy?
.
.
.
.
.
.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[woo me with science]

152. See post 57.

What's wrong with you?! Didn't you SEE the President with that adorable kid?


(Thank you, bvar22.)

[bvar22]

156. I must have missed that.

Maybe if I see the photo with the adorable kid,
I will change my mind about these horrible Trade "Deals" and all the other Conservative Policy coming from our current Party leadership.

I can understand why ConservativeDemocrats are so happy with the current Policy & Direction of the Democratic Party. If I were a Conservative, I would be happy too.

I am willing to listen and politely debate rational, cogent arguments SUPPORTING Conservative Policy instead of the cartoons, fabrications, and Strawmen coming from that corner of DU.

[djean111]

153. Aside from "well, we have not seen it yet", I don't think they have been given

their talking points as yet.
Should be duzies.

[noiretextatique]

154. even the loyal obama supporters cannot defend this

hence the need to attack the messenger. sure the OP is provocative, but does anyone have a cogent pro-TPP argument? note: I trust the president or you are a hater are not cogent pro-TPP arguments.

[steve2470]

163. k&r nt

[Bluenorthwest]

168. The Defenders....

[Zorra]

178. cali, cali, cali...this a new day, and we need to level the global playing field.

Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2013, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Workers in the US need to be brought down to the poverty levels of Third World slaves laborers. It's time to admit the Middle Class experiment has failed, and that the two class feudal systems of the past, when there were only kindly noble lords and their peasant serfs, are more efficient, and better in the long run for the unwashed masses who are not really capable of thinking for themselves.

And why should one country be allowed to have forests and clean water, while others have none? Best to make things equal, and just totally destroy the natural world everywhere (except on our masters' private hunting preserves, of course).

Let's not be selfish now...m'kay? We need to give back to the 1%.

Unbridled, unregulated, money making Free Market Capitalism - it is the Third Way, and it is the Only Way.



Let us pray.