General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Takes Anti-Worker Criticisms of Trade Deals ‘Personally’
Arit John
t aritbenie
President Obama and his agenda get called all sorts of names, but an easy way to strike a nerve is to call his policies "anti-worker."
During a speech on Thursday to Organizing for Americathe group that helped campaign for Obama in 2008 and 2012the president called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the most "progressive" trade agreement in U.S. history and said he takes it "personally" when critics on the left say it will hurt workers.
"[W]hen people say that this trade deal is bad for working families, they dont know what theyre talking about. I take that personally," Obama said. "My entire presidency has been about helping working families."
I take that personally.
President Obama
Obama characterized the Democratic opposition to the trade deal as reflexive, rather than informed. "Ive got some good friends who are opposed to this trade agreement, but when I ask them specifically what is it that you oppose, they start talking about NAFTA," Obama said, referring to an unpopular free-trade agreement signed under President Clinton. (Both Obama and Hillary Clinton denounced the agreement during the 2008 election.) Obama said that critics "need to tell me whats wrong with this trade agreement, not one that was passed 25 years ago."
By good friends, Obama likely meant Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has been a vocal opponent of the deal and Trade Promotion Authority, or "fast track," a bill currently being considered by Congress that would allow Obama's trade deals to pass without amendments. Earlier this week Obama said the two have been "allies on a whole host of issues, but she's wrong on this."
more...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-24/obama-takes-anti-worker-criticisms-of-trade-deals-personally-
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Let the experts interpret it for the lay people.
Produce the text!
99Forever
(14,524 posts).. Has offered to professionally analyze the entire document and present his legal findings, free of charge.
President Obama, consider your bluff called.
Reveal EVERY FUCKING WORD OF TPP NOW or STFU, Mr. President.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I loved Woodrow Wilson's #1 point in his 14 points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points
However, the UK and France would not even follow this principle during the WWI peace negotiations and I have not seen any evidence that the world as a whole has proven willing to live by this. In the real world you can't go around releasing everything that everyone is saying in the negotiations unless you want international negotiations to grind to a halt everywhere. I suppose the US or some other important countries could refuse to conduct any more negotiations until Wilson's point was followed. But I'm not sure that Democrats want a world without international negotiations in which disputes are handled by other, less diplomatic, means.
The republicans called for release of information on the Iranian negotiations because they did not trust Obama and they wanted to blow the negotiations up. I am glad that did not happen but they were right (in a warped sort of way) to try that tactic. It would have wrecked the agreement if they could have gotten one side or the other to release the text of the negotiations while they were still ongoing.
Republicans complained about FDR's 'secret tariff agreements' in the campaigns against him in 1936 and 1940. "Secret" trade negotiations are nothing new.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)First it is secret
Then it gets fast tracked
Then no amendments.
We are at the mercy of "trust me"
There is no reason that if this is the most progressive trade agreement, as it is said to be, it needs to follow past patterns of secrecy.
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)of our country personally.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Those that do not understand do not want to understand and bury their heads in the sands of isolated pockets of disappointment while ignoring all the accomplishments raining down.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Because you won't tell us. So by all means, inform us.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I take that personally. However, the difference is I'm not in a position to do anything about it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The problem is people have tried these things and find the HOPE isn't warranted that this one will break the pattern.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Does passage of this treaty affect him and his family dirrectly? Is he "on the take?" Statements such as this make me trust him less.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Investor State Dispute Settlement -- giving foreign corporations the right to override our local environmental and labor laws through a foreign tribunal made up of corporate lawyers, socializing their *anticipated* lost profits at *our* expense. With no access by *us* to *their* tribunals to countersue.
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership a cornerstone of Mr. Obamas remaining economic agenda would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings federal, state or local before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?_r=0
The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose
Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?
One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but dont be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html