Obama To Democratic Trade Critics: 'I Take That Personally'

[lovemydog]

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama fought back on Thursday against the biggest domestic obstacle to the Pacific trade pact he wants to conclude before he leaves office: the trade skeptics in his own Democratic party. Trade unions, environmental groups and high-profile Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have come out swinging against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying it would send American jobs overseas.

"When people say that this trade deal is bad for working families, they don't know what they're talking about," Obama told a group of about 200 volunteers and donors with Organizing for Action, an advocacy group formed by his former campaign team. "I take that personally. My entire presidency has been about helping working families. "The Chamber of Commerce didn't elect me twice - working folks did," he said.

Obama argued it would be illogical for him to sign a trade deal that would hurt middle-class jobs given his efforts to expand health care insurance, bail out the auto industry and overhaul Wall Street regulations."I spent a lot of time and a lot of political capital to save the auto industry," Obama said, banging the lectern with a pointed finger for emphasis. "Why would I pass a deal that would be bad for U.S. auto workers?" Obama is seeking fast-track authority from Congress to finalize the TPP deal, which would link a dozen economies and cover a third of global trade.

The Senate could vote on the fast-track legislation next week, but it may face a tough ride in the House of Representatives, where many Democrats oppose it. Democratic opponents say the deal would cause a repeat of the factory closures and job losses seen after the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico was approved in 1993. Obama said he understands the fears, but said the criticism was out of date, arguing the new deal will include strong protections for labor and the environment, and warning that a failure to pass it would cede economic power to China. "You need to tell me what's wrong with this trade agreement, not one that was passed 25 years ago," he said, urging his supporters to spread the word. "We can't just oppose trade on reflex alone."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/obama-tpp-opposition_n_7132208.html

[cali]

1. too bad. That's the democratic process, Mr. President

He's not getting a free ride on this. Tough shit.

[RiverLover]

11. Making certain the American people don't have a seat at the negotiating table is an affront

to Democracy.

I take the TPA Fast Track personally. Its a slap in the face of representative Democracy.

[DCBob]

2. This is too logical for the knee jerk opponents.

[cali]

5. to you. every opponent is a knee jerk opponent

Nothing remotely logical about a politician telling people to just trust him on an important issue.

Critical assessment of the tpp is possible based on the three leaked chapters, other leaked documentation, analysis of said information, and the array of forces lined up, supporting and opposing it.

[DCBob]

16. Not all opponents are knee-jek but most are in this case.

They just assume its an Asian version of NAFTA which will just result in exporting US jobs. That's an unfair assumption.

[99Forever]

3. We aren't interested in buying your pig in a poke, Mr President.

No release of all text of the job-killing POS, no sale.

Losing my job is personal to me.

And no, I don't trust you or anyone else that says "trust me."

[TheKentuckian]

4. Good, you ought to and we take it personally that you would push another democracy strangling, job

killing, corporate capture enabling "free trade" deal.

[pampango]

6. "Obama argued it would be illogical for him to sign a trade deal that would hurt middle-class jobs

given his efforts to expand health care insurance, bail out the auto industry and overhaul Wall Street regulations."I spent a lot of time and a lot of political capital to save the auto industry," Obama said, banging the lectern with a pointed finger for emphasis. "Why would I pass a deal that would be bad for U.S. auto workers?"

"When people say that this trade deal is bad for working families, they don't know what they're talking about," Obama told a group of about 200 volunteers and donors with Organizing for Action, an advocacy group formed by his former campaign team. "I take that personally. My entire presidency has been about helping working families.

Democratic opponents say the deal would cause a repeat of the factory closures and job losses seen after the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico was approved in 1993.

Obama said he understands the fears, but said the criticism was out of date, arguing the new deal will include strong protections for labor and the environment, and warning that a failure to pass it would cede economic power to China."

[BeyondGeography]

7. The criticism is out of date

Could be.

What's certain is "trade deal" is lighter fluid for a lot of people on the left. Krugman, in his, "I'm opposed, but this isn't the terrible, worker destroying deal that progressives say it is," dissent, also said almost everyone exaggerates the importance of trade policy, and that Obama shouldn't be wasting his time on this deal, as the gains will be minuscule relative to the political fallout. That all sounds right.

[cali]

8. no.

Here's an example. It's analysis of the tpa in its current iteration. The tpa enshrined governing principles for all future trade agreements. Professor Flynn is recognized as a leading expert in the field.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026547878

[pampango]

10. Agreed. I wonder if he is trying to resurrect FDR's International Trade Organization which went

well beyond trade issues and into labor standards, commodity agreements, business regulations, international investment and services. I suppose Obama is a student of history but his political 'radar' is not well calibrated if he thinks political attitudes are close to what they were in the 1940's.

FDR's ideas on trade and international cooperation on issues such as those the ITO would have encompassed are not nearly as popular on the left today. And those FDR ideas were never popular with the right. Trying to resurrect them now is indeed a case where "the gains will be minuscule relative to the political fallout".

[joshcryer]

14. I think that may be where he is coming from.

FDR fucked up by not agreeing to Keynes' International Clearing Union. If TPP works it will undoubtedly be an example for future agreements, going forward. To me, Obama is striving to "get it right." Whether he has the advisers and policy wonks in place capable of getting it right is in question.

Note: I have doubts TPP will work, but I can't rule it out. We'll see what happens. Most importantly, even if TPP fails, that won't stop the US from trying different approaches. International trade / globalization exists, if it exists, it must be dealt with.

[pampango]

18. I largely agree but I don't think globalization cannot be reversed. I have heard Krugman refer

to the period before WWI as a "mini-globalization" era with lower tariffs and more trade than in previous eras. Woodrow Wilson had lowered tariffs before the war and vetoed tariffs increases passed by congress after the war.

Republicans Harding, Coolidge and Hoover took the 'globalization' bull by the horns in the 1920's and raised tariffs repeatedly. Other countries responded in kind and trade dropped off dramatically. Essentially the era of 'globalization' had ended through force of political will. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover proved that it could be done. FDR came along and reversed their policies but that is a different story.

It may be more difficult for that to happen now with technology, travel and communications being much different than they were in the 1920. But I would not bet that history cannot repeat itself if the right chain of political events happens.

I wonder what would happen if TPP had existed for 20 years with strong labor and environmental standards and a proposal came along to ditch it in favor of 6 bilateral FTA's with no such standards and to leave trade with the other countries to be governed by the WTO which is not known for such strong standards? Are we resisting change and the inherent unknowns that go with it or taking a stance based on the policy itself.

[Autumn]

9. I hope you do take it personally, because I mean it personally.

You want us to tell you what's wrong with it? Let us know what"s in it. Oh wait, we can't. No one can tell you what's wrong with it Mr, Transparency, it's a fucking secret. I'm appalled that he actually said that. What's sad is that none of his volunteers and donors with Organizing for Action pointed that out to him. I guess it went right over their heads in the warm glow of his speech.

[joshcryer]

12. I'm surprised he's so defensive.

I guess he believes in his policy wonks. Still, pretty impressive. I truly expected him to just not say anything and let the conspiracies flow, wait for a quiet vote, and be done with it. Instead he appears to be defending it. Pretty courageous whether you agree with him or not. If TPP "works" he may be seen as the harbinger of US trade agreements. Maybe that's where he stands.

[gollygee]

13. That's not a bad thing

I have been and still feel like a supporter of the President, except for the TPP. I've had a great deal of trust in him, but we as a country know what trade deals do to working people. I live in a town that was hurt horribly by NAFTA. I just can't trust any trade deal. If there were more openess so I could hear debate among economists over the specifics and I could SEE that it was different, I might feel less freaked out by it. This fact from NAFTA remains: we can't compete in a free trade agreement with countries that don't have worker and environmental protections unless we also get rid of our worker and environmental protections.

[fadedrose]

15. Taking it personally

is the way he should take it. I guess he can't believe that with all he's been doing to try to correct the trade deficits we've had that get greater every year that no one believes him. I heard the amounts of the trade deficits listening to CSpan hearings and was shocked. Something has to be done to protect us.

I just can't say that it's bad till it's made public and the details are all out. I don't feel that the President is a "bad" man who wants to hurt the country.

It's like the guy who got lipstick on his shirt when somebody bumped into him and he can't explain it away because he was in the wrong place at the right time and his wife is standing there tapping her foot on the ground wondering whether she should believe him or not. He can't do this to me, and I think I may trust him on the lipstick.

(am married but this never came up, just an analogy to explain feeling)

[AzDar]

17. Oh... THIS is what he takes personally, huh? Help me out here...did he 'take it personally' when Joe

Wilson called him a LIAR, to his face, on live teevee? I don't recall BO making such a statement then...OR when he was attacked regarding his heritage, religion, or eligibility to serve...any statements about things being 'personal' then?? But when trusted members of his own Party rightly question what appears to be a fucking living nightmare of a trade deal that is being shoved down our throats, he's offended? Whose side is he really on?