Obama Dismisses Democratic Foes Of Sweeping Trade Pact, Says It Would Level Global Commerce

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By LAURIE KELLMAN
Apr. 17, 2015 3:12 PM EDT


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday defended his pursuit of a sweeping trade pact as good for American workers in a global economy, dismissing fierce opposition from his own party as a "ratification of the status quo."

The challenge for the Democratic president was on stark display hours before he began speaking at a White House news conference. Earlier in the day, Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the senior Democrat of House Ways Means Committee, declared he was "out to defeat" the legislation because, he said, it would cost U.S. jobs and damage the environment. Only a few Democrats in the House, Levin predicted, would support the legislation.

Conceding the issue is difficult for the Democratic Party, Obama said the authority he sought is the same exercised by past presidents of both parties. And the pact he's seeking with 11 Pacific nations would prevent countries like China and Japan from having a leg up in global commerce.

"Being opposed to this new trade agreement is essentially a ratification of the status quo, where a lot of folks are selling here, but we're not selling there," Obama said at a news conference alongside Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

Read more: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/d00d76e03696428bbf876f80c680d8ec/US--United-States-Trade

[merrily]

1. Eat your peas, Sander.

[TheBlackAdder]

51. If E.F.F. is against it, I'm against it.

They have NEVER been wrong on a major subject.

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/whats-wrong-tpp

[DCBob]

107. I like peas.

[SamKnause]

2. Turncoat

[Cheese Sandwich]

28. But isn't this what he promised to do?

It's not like he switched positions. He ran on this, and he's following through.

Democrats are getting exactly what they voted for. Support for TPP is even written into the Democratic Party platform.

[Larry Engels]

79. +1.

[merrily]

90. No. The notion that Democratic voters voted for the TPP is too ludicrous to

Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 04:52 AM - Edit history (1)

warrant more than no and I call bs.

On the other hand, if you are parodying a certain DUer, but thought it was too obvious for the sarcasm emote, kudos.

[Cheese Sandwich]

110. ok but here is a link to the official 2012 Democratic Party platform where it supports TPP

President Obama signed into law new trade agreements with
South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that will support tens of thousands of private-sector jobs, but not before he
strengthened these agreements on behalf of American workers and businesses. We remain committed to finding
more markets for American-made goods – including using the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the United States
and eight countries in the Asia-Pacific, one of the most dynamic regions in the world – while ensuring that workers’
rights and environmental standards are upheld, and fighting against unfair trade practices. We expanded and
reformed assistance for trade-affected workers, and we demanded renewal of that help alongside new trade
agreements

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/101962.pdf

Obama was a candidate that was public about supporting TPP and other free trade pacts.


Also here is a video where Obama is with other heads of government negotiating TPP, and selling TPP to the American people in 2011:

So there is evidence that Obama has supported TPP and the Democratic Party supports TPP in it's party platform.

[merrily]

111. You realize there was no primary in 2012, right? Obama v. Romney, right?

Again, the claim that Americans voted for the TPP is ludicrous and I call Bs.


jc

[Cheese Sandwich]

113. Ok I guess you're right.

But then it raises the question, why was there no primary challenge in 2012?

If labor and progressives did not like Obama's trade policies, why didn't they support a primary challenge in 2012?

Certainly by then it was as clear that he was full speed ahead with TPP.

[merrily]

124. You would have to ask the Party and labor union executives that. People I know wanted a primary.

For just one thing, there was a draft Sanders movement of sorts even then.

And I sure hope you are not going with the myth that whoever wants to can put up someone for POTUS against an incumbent, with no money, no search committee, etc. and a day job or two.

That is one of the more laughable talking points I've seen repeated on this board over and over, and I've seen quite a few.

[Cheese Sandwich]

125. Well whatever the problem was, we seem to still have it

Most Democrats seem willing to nominate Hillary, even though I guess she is pro-TPP.

Sure she is going to pay lip service to labor, environment and human rights issues. But by now everyone should be able to see through the smokescreen to know she is on board with the corporate plan for trade policy. Democrats will still probably nominate her though.

[merrily]

126. Seeing through smoke screens is a good skill.

[cascadiance]

96. NO! He ran on renegotiating NAFTA!!!!

Implying that he would reverse the crap that NAFTA did, but now he wants to do what NAFTA did earlier on steroids! That is NOT what he was promising Americans he'd do. More like what he secretly promised corporate donors he'd do!

[merrily]

100. I had the same reaction, but have edited my post.

Cheese Sandwich may just have thought the satire was just too obvious to require a sarcasm emote.

I did that once and got a hide.

I don't know either way, but I just checked c.s.'s journal and liked the top couple of entries.

[merrily]

112. Sorry, I was right about cheese sandwich the first time and so are you.

[Cheese Sandwich]

114. Yeah I probably was just in error

[amandabeech]

115. He also promised to renegotiate NAFTA, too, but we didn't get that. n/t

[woo me with science]

123. I keep flashing back to this Onion story that ran right after he was elected in 2008:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/international-con-man-barack-obama-leaves-us-with,2600/

"I assure you, this was the most pleasurable and fulfilling con I have ever pulled off," the note continued. "Not since the Moroccan elections in 1984 have I taken so much joy in raising, and then crushing, the hopes and dreams of so many pathetic, disenfranchised, and downtrodden people."

[iandhr]

3. I called Gillibrand...

her office said she is a no vote.

Wasn't able to get through to Schumer.


Call your reps.

We stopped the President from bombing Syria. We stopped Lawrence Summers as Fed Chair. And We got net neutrality all because we made a **** load of noise. Jam the phone lines.

[daleanime]

60. Amen.....

[NanceGreggs]

77. "We stopped the President from bombing Syria."

[iandhr]

81. i don't mean DU

I mean the country shouted hell no really loudly. We got to do the same here.

[NanceGreggs]

82. If Obama intended to bomb Syria ...

... he would have done so.

[Cha]

88. Exactly, Nance.. they should stick to taking credit when it's due.. EarlG got it..

Mahalo Nance~

[Major Hogwash]

89. ^Post of the day^

Quite, er, illuminating.

[Cha]

92. ..

that means a lot, Major! Mahalo!

[Scootaloo]

101. You should see his posts from August-September, 2013 n/t

[jakeXT]

109. No need to tamp down the violence in Syria

Mr. McDonough, who had perhaps the closest ties to Mr. Obama, remained skeptical. He questioned how much it was in America’s interest to tamp down the violence in Syria....Mr. McDonough argued that the status quo in Syria could keep Iran pinned down for years. In later discussions, he also suggested that a fight in Syria between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda would work to America’s advantage.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/denis-mcdonough-caricature-realism-9307

[merrily]

91. No outcry from this nation

has ended a war or prevented this nation from entering one. Not even when we were colonies.

Maybe, maybe, maybe Vietnam, but that was after 10 years of demonstration and the media and the entertainment industry either were on the side of the left or ended up there. Walter Cronkite. The Smothers Brothers. Bob Dylan. By the end, one number one hit song after another was anti that war. One TV discussion show after another.

And, even at that, maybe, at the end, the neocons pulled the plug. But, I'll even give you Vietnam. After all, that was before the Washington D.C. area filled up with lobbyists, before multi-billionaires abounded, before five corporations controlled radio, TV and print news. Before one newspaper after another folded, never to be replaced. Before political messaging got as prevalent as it is now.

I am not sure that Obama never intended to do "something" in Syria. Not even sure he hasn't been doing "something" in Syria all along. But I am very sure a couple of weeks of phone calls from us hoi polloi did not turn that tide 180 degrees.

Edited to add: At the time, I made a post. I am not saying it is the entire answer. Who knows what calls may have been made and discussions had about bombing Syria? But, I believe that my earlier post did contain some facts relevant to this post, so here is the older post:

41. He had a lot of encouragement to back off on Syria.

First, there had been a lawsuit from several members of Congress, Democrat and Republican over his getting us involved in Libya without consulting Congress, as required (maybe) by the Constitution. That lawsuit had been dismissed because those members had not shown that they were speaking for Congress. However, as to Syria, there ha been a letter signed by over 100 members of Congress saying that the President should consult Congress over Syria, followed by a letter from Boehner raising 14 legal questions about how the President was proceeding as to Syria. It was after those things that Obama "backed off."

However, Pelosi and Boehner recently amended the Constitution (maybe) by telling Obama there was no reason for him to consult Congress about re-committing us to Iraq.

My "maybes" are not sarcasm. As is so often the case, the law is not clear. However, the point is, he didn't back down on Syria out of a clear blue sky. There was a context, also as is so often the case.

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5125522

But, let's not deflect this thread to war discussions. I'm sure others will try to deflect.

[JDPriestly]

4. Obama states the problem well, but offers the wrong solution:

"Being opposed to this new trade agreement is essentially a ratification of the status quo, where a lot of folks are selling here, but we're not selling there," Obama said at a news conference alongside Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

Read more: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/d00d76e03696428bbf876f80c680d8ec/US--United-States-Trade

True. That's the problem: "a lot of folks are selling here, but we're not selling there." The solution to that problem is bilateral (our country with each country separately) that insure that we do not buy more from the country with which we are negotiating a trade agreement than it buys from us.

We need more balance in our trade relationships.

Every dollar in our huge trade deficit is a dollar that could have been paid to an American worker, a dollar that could have been taxed to fund our government services including our huge military that insures the freedom of the seas and skies and of trade.

Our trade surplus proves that prior trade agreements which were negotiated in ways very similar to and by the same interests that negotiated the TPP harmed America. They did not help us.

I support Obama on many things. But on the issue of the TPP, he is wrong and out of touch with Main Street America.

We do not want the TPP. We have been duped too many times in the past with the false promises of more jobs and more exports if we only have one more trade agreement.

No. When our balance of payments is out of the red, then maybe Americans will be willing to think about trade agreements.

Obama is trying to cure a hangover from NAFTA and all our other trade agreements with just one more shot glass. Won't work. We are sick of the lies about these agreements. That the TPP will help our economy is a lie.

Obama says, for example:

He (Obama) pointed to the various brands of Japanese-made cars filling the streets of Washington compared to a lack of GM, Chrysler and Ford vehicles in Tokyo.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/d00d76e03696428bbf876f80c680d8ec/US--United-States-Trade

No trade agreement in the world will cause people with deep national loyalty to buy products made in other countries. No trade agreement in the world can make an American company design a car that will appeal to the Japanese or the Germans or the French for that matter. It's not going to happen. A lot goes into purchasing habits that trade agreements cannot change.

If you live in other countries for a while, you understand what I am talking about. Most countries take a great pride in the products their compatriots produce. They will buy foreign-made products but in many areas, just prefer their home-made ones. It's understandable.
No to the TPP.

[Pooka Fey]

108. +1

[amandabeech]

116. Not going to happen with the Japanese.

GM builds and sells lots of "Buicks" in China, but the parts don't come from the US.

Similarly, Ford designs, builds and sells autos and trucks in the EU, including Germany, but not all are the designs sold here. However, some of the smaller Ford models debuted in Europe, like the Focus.

However, in many countries that are poorer than us, every input is cheaper, not just labor. Land and power are cheaper, too. And in most cases, regulations either don't exist or aren't enforced. I'm sure that you saw those pictures of Chinese rivers running chartreuse. That's called absolute advantage, and the only thing that will even the score are tariffs.

[KoKo]

5. n/t

Last edited Fri Apr 17, 2015, 04:39 PM - Edit history (2)

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. Right because that vigorous fight for healthcare reform doesn't count at all!

[bahrbearian]

20. The vigorous fight for healthcare reform was Great for the insurance companies, no public option

[Ned Flanders]

39. Biggest Disappointment Ever

Not to mention the mandatory clause, which brought how much additional business to the insurance companies? And Medicare still can't negotiate for drug prices?

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. Disappointment?

Ned Flanders....good name.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. It was great for me too during the 4 months I was unemployed last year...

Along with the lives that have been saved by it.....Have you tried it?

By the way....whether you care to admit it or not YOUR health insurance has improved because of Obamacares! Lowest level of uninsured ever!

[bahrbearian]

64. I love giving my money to insurance company CEO's, I have no Choice.

Vigorously Fought, right

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. I like having healthcare when I am unemployed...thanks!

You also do not have to deal with Pre-Exisiting Conditions...you can thank Obama for that!

you also do not have insurance companies spending more than 20% on overhead...you can thank Obama for that...

You also have a minimum standard of care....you can thank Obama for that...

Your kids can stay on your insurance until 26 you can thank Obama for that....


Fewer people are dying without healthcare...you can thank President Obama for that!

[bahrbearian]

66. Public option

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. So?

You have still benefitted from Obamacares as have MILLIONS of Americans...

[blkmusclmachine]

73. Yay, RomneyCare/BobDoleCare

[Larry Engels]

80. Also, too, Hillarycare (1990s). :)

There's these big insurance companies, see?....

[jeff47]

83. That would be what created "BobDoleCare"

See, "BobDoleCare" was the Republican response to "HillaryCare". Because insurance companies didn't like "HillaryCare", so they had the Heritage Foundation write up an alternative.

A governor of MA decided to implement this plan, to show how "market solutions work!". Thus creating RomneyCare.

When the battle returned to the federal level, the brilliant idea was to use the Republican's plan. They'd never oppose their own plan! Thus creating the ACA. Democrats added some tweaks to make it a bit better, but it's basically the same plan Heritage came up with.

There's two good parts to the ACA:
1) It mostly fixes a horrific hole in our healthcare system.
2) It moves the battle for single-payer to the states.

[zeemike]

41. Yes a fight we lost.

Right from the start when single payer or the public option was taken off the table and we were told to fight for the scraps that fell on the floor.
And millions still have no health insurance much less health care...so our vigorous fight was a waste of time.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. Where did we lose?

We were NEVER going to get a Public Option...PERIOD!

[zeemike]

72. Well that is pretty much a losers attitude.

So I guess we deserved to lose.
Hopefully we can have a president that does not have that kind of attitude...that is why I want Warren of Sanders or someone who wants to win.

[GoneFishin]

23. Yep. I knew each time when he feigned impotence, and cried crocodile tears. It was always

when the left asked for some type of economic justice, or asked for white collar criminals to be prosecuted. But he always grows a pair when corporatist interests are at stake.

We've been played by this president big time.

[sendero]

50. Exactly..

.... look at how the can rustle up votes and hack down opposition WHEN HE WANTS TO.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. Do you people STILL call yourselves Democrats?

You sure don't sound like them....I checked the logo on the door...this is STILL Democratic Underground. Left Leaning Independent Underground is ----thataway---->

This is a successful Democratic President and you should be ashamed....Left Leaning Independent Jesus is not going to get elected President anytime soon.

But if YOU could do better....I suggest you give it a try yourself. Apparently according to the Left Leaning Independents you don't really need money to win....so why not run yourself?

[GoneFishin]

70. Yeah. "Democratic". Do you still call yourself democratic? Because a democratic system

doesn't only represent the rich.

[Skittles]

69. enough of this WE shit

people who paid attention were NEVER fooled

[merrily]

93. Sad to say I was. Big time, and for a lot of $$.

Also, I cooperated in being fooled. Whenever a 2008 Hillary supporter raised a valid point, I ran to google to refute it.

But, I'm educable. I learned.

[840high]

85. Absolutely -

[elehhhhna]

128. He can coast for life now, and

His family's place in the 1% is assured.


I knew he was a Trojan but nobody wanted to hear it. Not then.

[GoneFishin]

130. I know it. After he voted to retroactively immunize the telecomms from breaking laws that would

have landed any 99%er in prison for a long time, and after appointing Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, I pretty much knew we were screwed.

But as you say, people don't want to hear it.

[KoKo]

7. ...! I took "Level" the Global Economy to mean Disaster..which I think it is...n/t

[arcane1]

30. I had the exact same thought: I don't want to be on THAT level!!

Then again, I'm not entirely sure which American "workers" he's referring to, or what "products" they'll suddenly start buying overseas. If it's just DVDs and financial instruments, that isn't going to be of much benefit to anyone.

[frylock]

33. yep. interesting choice of words to be sure.

[Dont call me Shirley]

9. Call your Senators, Representatives and Whitehouse to express your opposition to this global

corporate coup' d'états.

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

[asiliveandbreathe]

10. Mr. President sir,

As a Democratic voter - what I am missing from you on the TPP is the what - and the why, in detail....substance and explanation would be good right about now....

We have been left with only bits and pieces, opinion from some who also only have bits and pieces..so what do you expect from those of us Americans who have been through the ringer to think...so much has written against TPP...our reference point is NAFTA...what did you expect?

Wyden, the same questions....who the HELL are you representing????Big ag - pharma - corps, who have already robbed and pillaged our country?????

MSM - what the hell - ask questions of substance - very much like Ashley Banfield did with Blackburn... that Ashley got a coherent answer..but at least she tried.....

[jomin41]

14. Exactly, asiliveandbreathe,

We've been fooled before.
NO MORE SECRECY!!!

[LiberalArkie]

11. It is nice that it levels the playing field between the US and India and China and others

The workers in those countries get less days off, less job protection, less environmental protections. I am pretty sure that they will move up to our pay level, vacation days, employee safety levels.

I wonder if this is what they were working towards but instead of it be Libertarian it is a Democratic plan.

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:

•"We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission."
•"We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs."
•"We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services."
•"We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry."
•"We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary."
•"We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service."
•"We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes."
•"We support the eventual repeal of all taxation."
•"As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately."
•"We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws."
•"We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended."
•"We condemn compulsory education laws ... and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws."
•"We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit."
•"We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency."
•"We support abolition of the Department of Energy."
•"We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation."
•"We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system."
•"We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets."
•"We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration."
•"We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration."
•"We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children."
•"We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and 'aid to the poor' programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals."
•"We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households."
•"We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act."
•"We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission."
•"We support the repeal of all state usury laws."

[arcane1]

34. That platform reads like it was written by an angry 12-year-old, while grounded in his room.

Funny how people who were born rich are always demanding taking money away from people with no money.

[jtuck004]

13. Good for Vietnam...

"Vietnam TPP Update: Edging Closer to Completion"

HANOI – The U.S.-led free trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), continues to roll ever closer to completion. While negotiations are ongoing, there seems to be a growing feeling in the air that the largest such agreement in U.S. history will soon be signed.

Vietnam, in particular, has expressed its strong desire to see the free trade agreement (FTA) completed soon. The country has much to gain, including drastically reduced tariffs in some of the world’s largest markets.

Upon completion, the TPP trade area would comprise a region with US$28 trillion in economic output, making up around 39 percent of the world’s total output. If the TPP is successfully implemented, tariffs will be removed on almost US$2 trillion in goods and services exchanged between the signatory countries.

As part of his “Pacific Pivot” policy, U.S. President Obama has made a point of trying to strengthen the United States’ relationship with Vietnam, as well as other countries in Asia. The TPP is seen by the U.S. administration as a way to continue strengthening Asian relationships and balance Chinese influence in the region.
...

- See more at: http://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnam-tpp-update.html/#sthash.W3xbThaV.dpuf

Makes it easy to move some of those higher-wage positions from China to Vietnam, where the pay isn't quite as high.

Should level the playing field...assuming your home depot runs specials on thatched roofs so you can build your own hut.

[haikugal]

102. Didn't you get the memo....

We're all going to move into a tiny home and save the world!

[jtuck004]

103. Ironic. Carter said we were hurting ourselves with our profligate spending, suggested we

put on sweaters, turn down the thermostat, get control of our finances. Instead the people elected Reagan, and we went on a credit and spending binge that now, along with the criminal actions of our bank$ter/donors, may well leave us so poor that we HAVE to wear sweaters, turn down the heat, and do the bidding of people in China, or even Vietnam.

[haikugal]

104. Irony indeed... nt

[LiberalEsto]

15. And NAFTA was going to save Americans' jobs.

I remember how that worked out. Ross Perot was right about the "great sucking sound" of jobs disappearing from our country.

[merrily]

94. Democrats were probably very happy to have THAT third party candidate on the ballot.

[Demeter]

16. It will "Level" it all right

We will all be reduced to living in rubble, working for nothing, and dying of the pollution at 40 or earlier.

[zeemike]

45. That is exactly right.

Leveling the playing field can be done by taking down the high to meet the low...in fact that is the best way to do it...We are fools if we think they are going to raise anyones wages.

But the sell job is well underway and they have enlisted those who are fans to help sell it because a fan will always go along with whatever the idol says...and if we don't agree we must be haters.

[appalachiablue]

84. +1. Level to rubble is exactly what I thought. This country isn't qualified to operate

the Golf Course at the Congressional Country Club.

[840high]

86. +1

[polichick]

17. Oh yippee, the change we hoped for!

[Geronimoe]

18. A seat at the table

When he ran to get our vote, he promised every American a seat at the table. His administration was going to be the most transparent.

[SoapBox]

19. ...a giant sucking sound.

[Kip Humphrey]

21. My way or no way doesn't fly with me at all. Fair trade, YES! Corporate Sovereignty, NO!!!

Because previous presidents offered the same speaks more to the influence of multinationals than what's right and good for not only our country but also the world.

Folks, defeating TPP and EU Free Trade agreements may be the last stand against what is today called Global Corporatism and was once called (more rightly IMO) Global Fascism.

My question to all citizens of the world is: Will WWII become but a winning battle in a lost war against global fascism?

[Punx]

22. "It Would Level Global Commerce"

Ok,

So show me!

Would like to see whether there is any "Truth in Advertising". Otherwise, what's the rush?

Or perhaps there is truth to the statement, "It will level global commerce.", by bringing American workers down to third world wages.

[99th_Monkey]

25. That last thing you said.

IMHO is why TPP backers don't want us to see it.

[Doctor_J]

36. it will standardize it at Bangladesh levels

[LiberalLoner]

40. Exactly.

[Phlem]

78. you left out

and "No Jobs".

[hedda_foil]

87. Level global commerce. You mean like this?

That's what comes to mind for me.

[tomsaiditagain]

24. Corporatization of the world

"Corporatization is the process of transforming state assets, government agencies, or municipal organizations into corporations."

Soon there will be a billionaire president.

Ladies and gentlemen the President of the United States, Jim Bob Walmart

[99th_Monkey]

26. I sure HOPE the prez. CHANGEs his mind ASAP

but I'm not betting on it.

[still_one]

27. Why not release the details of the TPP so it can be fairly evaluated by the people

[sadoldgirl]

29. And I hope that the Unions

will remember every Rep and Senator, who votes for this,
in the next elections. Perhaps it is time for them to
make clear that they cannot be taken for granted.

[Binkie The Clown]

31. Level global wages is more like it.

Americans will be able to work for the same wages a sweat shops in Bangladesh. Then American labor can compete with outsourced foreign labor.

[donnasgirl]

43. Do not forget

Child labor, oh the good old days.

[Binkie The Clown]

46. And the 12-hour work day 7 days a week. n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

32. It will level us all under the steamroller of global corporate rule

He really doesn't think much of us, does he?

[Doctor_J]

35. greatest, most liberal president in history

Too bad he doesn't talk to republicans like this

[Doctor_J]

37. non-lame duck president kicks ass!!!11!11!

of dems.

[DebbieCDC]

38. This is the same bullshit Clinton peddled with NAFTA

And look where that got us? The only thing Ross Perot was ever right about.

Fool me once, shame on me.

[Half-Century Man]

42. He will bring balance to the force.

He is so close to being accurate. It should read "We will be leveled flat by the Global Commerce practices of a few Mega companies".

[bvar22]

44. Level Global Commerce????

--by killing UNIONS ,
and making Worker wages/benefits, Human Rights and Environmental Protections the least common denominator,
while Corporate Profits will be the top priority.

.....just like all the other "Free Trade Deals".
President Obama KNOWS this.... and STILL keeps pushing.

The headline should read simply,
Obama Dismisses Democrats and Americans who Work for a Living

[valerief]

47. Does that mean the U.S. would get their jobs back?

No, didn't think so.

[Half-Century Man]

48. I called Baldwin, Johnson and Pocan

Asked to be put on the record and requested they oppose the TPP.
FWIW

[MisterP]

49. The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who

The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided The differences between the parties are so clear and dramatic that it's hard to see how anyone who has been paying attention could be undecided

[democrank]

52. More "change" we can believe in.

[Thespian2]

53. Obama may dismiss foes of TPP

but he can't duck what is happening because of NAFTA (from the CBC)

"Chapter 11 has become a way for companies either to bypass domestic courts and regulatory agencies, or to get restitution denied through normal channels.

And with each new claim, companies are cleverly stretching the bounds of what they consider an investment. The same goes for expropriated property, which claimants now argue should extend to import permits, drilling rights and patent rulings.

This trend in NAFTA litigation could have profound implications for Canada as it readies for a new generation of free trade deals, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the just-completed European Union negotiations. In spite of the slew of recent Chapter 11 cases filed against Canada, Ottawa pushed for an investor-state dispute mechanism in the European free-trade deal. Similar provisions are expected to be in the TPP, vastly expanding the number of potential disputes."

Under TPP, corporations will own the whole damn world. The Harper government is as right-wing as America's Tea Party. What a brazen way to destroy countries!

[merrily]

99. "Make me do it." "Eat your peas." "Obama dismisses his critics."

Whatever.

[Hoyt]

54. Takes guts and commitment to tell a lot of Democrats who are either misinformed or playing politics

that they are wrong.

I'm even more convinced Obama is going to do the right thing.

[rury]

61. Amen, Hoyt!!!!

[Joe Turner]

127. I'm even more convinced Obama is going to do the right thing.

And your conviction springs from what? The fact that nearly 100% of the republican party is behind TPP and the legislation gives multinational corporations unprecedented the power to trump U.S. laws and regulation? Or do you just like agreements that are negotiated in secret and rammed through Congress without debate? Oh that's right, Obama wants it. Who is playing politics here?

[Hoyt]

129. Nope, foreign corporations can't trump US law... NAFTa which has the same provision

for 20 years hasn't trumped US law or instituted Sharia law.

As the Iran nuke negotiations demonstrate, some things have to be negotiated in secret. Fortunately TPP and Iran nuke agreement will be made public BEFORE Congress ratifies them.

[brentspeak]

131. Probably the best indication you're actually a Republican posting on a Democratic site. n/t

[Hoyt]

133. Right. Trusting Obama is being a Republican. You have anything substantive to say?

[brentspeak]

134. Yes: The GOP, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Heritage Foundation all trust

Obama on TPP.

EOM.

[Hoyt]

135. Well, you seem to be on the side of low info Tbaggers on this one. So what does that tell you?

Heck, the Chamber of Commerce is for expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare. You against that?

[Skeeter Barnes]

57. I wish he had fought this hard for the public option. The Chamber of Commerce owns Obama.

[FairWinds]

62. takes guts to stand up there . .

and lie like that.

[Hoyt]

63. And Elizabeth Warren and other critics are proving that.

[madville]

68. That's the problem

In order to level the playing field the US has to come down a few notches in order for others to come up a few notches. There is a finite amount of prosperity, we would have to give some up in order for other nations to gain some.

[Enthusiast]

71. The TPP is a betrayal of the American working people.

Secret agent Trojan Horse of the .2%.

[blkmusclmachine]

74. http://cdn1.godfatherpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obama-pinocchio.jpg

[Hoyt]

75. From a right wing web site. Christ.

[Maedhros]

76. This puts the lie to any inkling of a notion that Obama is 'Progressive:'

Were he any kind of liberal or progressive he would have found a way to give labor a seat at the negotiating table. Yet he instead is happy with these people:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026520005

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/16/tpp-revolving-door/

Here is information on three major figures in the Trade Representative’s office, gleaned from their disclosure forms:

— Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, the assistant U.S. trade representative for agricultural affairs, recently lobbied for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group for biotech companies. Lauritsen’s financial disclosure form shows she made $320,193 working to influence “state, federal and international governments” on biotech patent and intellectual property issues. She worked for BIO as an executive vice president through April of 2011, before joining the Trade Representative office.

— Christopher Wilson, the deputy chief of mission to the World Trade Organization, recently worked for C&M International, a trade consulting group, where he represented Chevron, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, British American Tobacco, General Electric, Apple and other corporate interests. Wilson’s financial disclosure shows he made $250,000 a year, in addition to an $80,000 bonus in 2013, before he joined the Obama administration. Wilson left C&M International in February of 2014 and later joined the Trade Representative’s office. C&M International reportedly lobbied Malaysia, urging it to oppose tobacco regulations in Australia.

— Robert Holleyman, the deputy United States trade representative, previously worked as the president of the Business Software Alliance, a lobbying group that represents IBM, Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and other technology companies seeking to strengthen copyright law. Holleyman earned $1,141,228 at BSA before his appointment. Holleyman was nominated for his current position in February of last year.

[merrily]

95. That started to be exposed when he appointd Rahm and the hits have just kept coming.

AFTER his election, when almost nothing could rob him of the 2008 prize or the incumbency advantage in 2012, he said he was a New Democrat.

Yes He Is

Obama calls himself a New Democrat and shows what it means.
By Bruce Reed

For conservatives still trying to fit Barack Obama into their old tax-and-spend-liberal box, Tuesday was a very bad day. In the morning, the president gave a tough-minded education reform speech demanding more accountability from schools, teachers, students, and parents. The same afternoon, he brought members of the House New Democrat Coalition to the White House and told them, "I am a New Democrat." According to Politico, Obama went on to describe himself as a fiscally responsible, pro-growth Democrat who supports free and fair trade and opposes protectionism.

And fucking slate rah rah rahed.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_hasbeen/2009/03/yes_he_is.html

[DCBob]

106. The TPP is progress.

Global free trade is what made the world what it is. Without it we would still be living in caves.

[cascadiance]

117. And why are the huge trade deficit and huge job losses of free trade treaties "good" for us...

... that have happened since Reagan's time and NOT before then. As Alan Grayson points out, when we have high trade deficits and high job losses we lose not only jobs for our country but assets to the ownership of foreign countries too, instead of working us back towards a strong position of those statistics we had before so-called "free trade".

The only thing that "free trade" treaties have really done is try to have a global "bottom" that companies have a lot more abillity to race to so that they have minimal labor costs and environmental costs and reward wealthy ownership with a bigger portion of their profits at the rest of the world's expense. That's not "global free trade reality" that we want, but it is what it has been made in the last 20-30 years which is why the global world economy is trashed so much for everyone but the crooks at the top that have been able to pay for with their excess wealth to not be prosecuted for their crimes.

I and most of the rest of the world do NOT think of this kind of globalization as "progress". It is only "progress" for those in the top 1%, and even then, they probably will suffer at some point if the world economy suffers enough to the point that their wealth goes down with the rest of us if we all can only live on survival subsistance, and not able to spend money with more wealth ourselves to contribute more business that everyone can profit from, and restore the TRUE job creators back to their ability to generate more jobs instead of starving them of that ability to spend money and generate more business and jobs.

[DCBob]

119. because people tend to buy the cheapest product no matter where its made.

Thats a problem but the solution is not locking the doors.

[cascadiance]

120. They are forced to do this by the coordinated effort to also steal their wages too at the same time!

This is a coordinated effort by the 1% to force everyone in to "survival mode" in Maslow's pyramid to allow the 1% to manipulate everything to their favor.

If people were being paid adequately, then they'd feel no problem with paying reasonable costs for locally produced goods, especially if those imported goods were PROPERLY taxed for all of the extra welfare given to them in terms of protecting shipping lanes, etc. and other laws that subsidize those that want to globalize the economy at our expense.

If we really had some global organized labor efforts and global organized environmental laws efforts, it would be harder for the corporations to find a bottom to race to, and there wouldn't be the means to provide this underpriced "cheap" goods and services to us that don't reflect the real costs of what is being delivered, because it is stealing from our communities in terms of environmental protection, and protecting labor along the way.

[DCBob]

122. I agree many feel forced into survival mode.

Even though we make decent money we still almost always buy the cheapest stuff we can find just to make ends meet. I just dont think blocking this trade deal solves any of this.

[brentspeak]

132. Yes, I thank NAFTA and CAFTA everyday for me not living in a cave

Things are so much better now that most Americans' job prospects and income levels have stagnated/decreased as a result of "free trade" deals.

Much better than in those pre-NAFTA days when Americans had to hunt dinosaurs for their daily meals.

[senz]

137. We've had global trade for hundreds of years.

What the TPP will do, and NAFTA, GATT/WTO have done, is to remove the legal right of democratically elected governments to protect the well-being of their own citizens, and this includes environmental protections.

These "trade" agreements put private, unelected, unaccountable corporations in charge of everything. It destroys democracy.

If this sounds good to you, then you are a Republican, at best. Most likely a corporatist, an enemy of those who founded this country.

[Novara]

105. So....tell me if I'm off-base here

It sounds like 1) Obama is afraid China will negotiate this sort of monumental trade deal so he's doing to do it before they get the chance to do it, 2) in order to make it happen he has to loosen a shit-ton of regulations that will harm the US. And 3) he somehow believes this may somehow be a fix for NAFTA - to include more nations - but it's actually much WORSE.

There's a lot to be afraid of here, but I'm particularly upset about the environmental fuckups that will result - environmental fuckups with no accountability. Do we really want our air to look like China's? It's hard enough to clean up the environment after disasters, but with global warming in the picture, it will be even more difficult. There will be new chemical reactions and effects no one can currently predict.

[christx30]

118. I like he used the phrase "Leveling global commerce".

The first thing I thought of is how the nuke leveled Hiroshima.

[ananda]

121. Bullshit!

TPP is pure evil.

[RussBLib]

136. Obama needs to sumbit to lengthy questioning on the TPP

...if it is as good as he says it is, he should be happy to answer multiple questions about it.