Weekly Address: Fighting for Trade Deals that Put American Workers First

[cal04]

Source: White House

In this week’s address, the President laid out why new, high-standards trade agreements are important for our economy, our businesses, our workers, and our values. These new trade deals are vital to middle-class economics -- the idea that this country does best when everybody gets their fair shot, everybody does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules. The President has been clear -- any deal he signs will be the most progressive trade agreement in our history with strong provisions for both workers and the environment. It would also level the playing field -- and when the playing field is level, American workers always win.

Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/04/25/weekly-address-fighting-trade-deals-put-american-workers-first

---

Today, I want to talk about why new trade deals are important to our values.

They’re vital to middle-class economics -- the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

These are simple values. They’re American values. And we strive to make sure our own economy lives up to them, especially after a financial crisis brought about by recklessness and greed. But we also live in a world where our workers have to compete on a global scale. Right now, on an uneven playing field. Where the rules are different. And that’s why America has to write the rules of the global economy -- so that our workers can compete on a level playing field.

I understand why a lot of people are skeptical of trade deals. Past deals didn’t always live up to the hype. They didn’t include the kind of protections we’re fighting for today.

We have lessons to learn from the past -- and we have learned them. But trying to stop a global economy at our shores isn’t one of those lessons. We can’t surrender to the future -- because we are meant to win the future. If America doesn’t shape the rules of the global economy today, to benefit our workers, while our economy is in a position of new global strength, then China will write those rules. I’ve seen towns where manufacturing collapsed, plants closed down, and jobs dried up. And I refuse to accept that for our workers. Because I know when the playing field is level, nobody can beat us.

That’s why, when I took office, we started thinking about how to revamp trade in a way that actually works for working Americans. And that’s what we’ve done with a new trade partnership we’re negotiating in the Asia-Pacific -- home to the world’s fastest-growing markets.

It’s the highest-standard trade agreement in history. It’s got strong provisions for workers and the environment -- provisions that, unlike in past agreements, are actually enforceable. If you want in, you have to meet these standards. If you don’t, then you’re out. Once you’re a part of this partnership, if you violate your responsibilities, there are actual consequences. And because it would include Canada and Mexico, it fixes a lot of what was wrong with NAFTA, too.

So this isn’t a race to the bottom, for lower wages and working conditions. The trade agreements I’m negotiating will drive a race to the top. And we’re making sure American workers can retool through training programs and community colleges, and use new skills to transition into new jobs.

If I didn’t think this was the right thing to do for working families, I wouldn’t be fighting for it. We’ve spent the past six years trying to rescue the economy, retool the auto industry, and revitalize American manufacturing. And if there were ever an agreement that undercut that progress, or hurt those workers, I wouldn’t sign it. My entire presidency is about helping working families recover from recession and rebuild for the future. As long as I’m President, that’s what I’ll keep fighting to do.



https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/25/weekly-address-fighting-trade-deals-put-american-workers-first

[peacebird]

1. I call BS. If corporations can hire H1 B workers for 1/3 or 1/2 my salary then they will.

I am a SW Engineer as is hubby. Our salaries have stagnated or gone down for the last 15 years, as H1B coworkers numbers have increased. It is not education or skill or training American workers need Mr President. It is the willingness to work for a pittance instead of a middleclass wage.

[cstanleytech]

5. How is the issue with companies using H1 B workers related to a trade deal though?

[Fred Sanders]

34. It is not related much. Just a chance to vent against Obama for the perceived errors of past Presidents?

[Beauregard]

181. H1b visas will probably be unnecessary under this treaty.

Free trade includes labor too, because labor is a commodity like any other. Real free trade would place no restrictions whatever on the movement of labor across borders.

But then I don't know what this treaty includes exactly, because we are not allowed to see it.

[midnight]

58. Companies using trade deal NAFTA-How 800,000 H-1B Workers Came to the U.S.

http://news.dice.com/2013/05/14/how-nearly-800000-h-1b-workers-came-to-work-in-the-u-s/


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2004-04-06-replace_x.htmT

[liberalmike27]

87. What a Bunch of Crap

The bill can't possibly "favor American workers," when it's a crushing blow, as have been the rest of the trade agreements to a huge segment of employment in this country. It has amounted to jobs leaving, along with the taxes they provide at every level. Look at a city sick with debt, and you have to look no further than trade agreements. In fact, I heard a Senator say we've lose 47 MILLION jobs in manufacturing, since 1979. American workers can not compete with the rest of the world, when a lot of them are making $2.00 a day. It is mathematically impossible. And why should we be trying to "compete," which I can only interpret as wage crushing, or getting by on pennies, anyway?

These agreements are sold to us as a positive, when in fact they've got negative effects, as described above. And they aren't "incidental" but purposeful, not accidents of trade, or a growing world. They are designed to lower American wages. They are designed to shift wealth away from this country. They are designed to allow foreign powers, not as advanced with safety and environmental law, to sue, this rid the evil corporations of laws, of regulation that has helped Americans.

Perhaps worse, instead of using trade to lift up foreign countries workers, we instead consign them to be a wage-slave labor class. Often they work twelve hours a day, for seven days a week, with little or no vacation, or time off. Some factories have to string nets, to keep employees from leaping off, to their deaths, they are so unhappy. The really sad thing is, we could be using them to require similar salaries, safety, and environmental laws, and regulation there, instead of allowing them to tear ours down. But that does not fit with the corporate agenda.

The taxes collected on those 47 million jobs would put us in the green on the debt too. Cities and States would be flush for money, we would not have to be pinching every penny, destroying the already beleaguered poor.

Obama said "We can't just start putting barriers up to trade" but that is exactly what our government needs to do. We lift them up. If they don't agree to be bettered, brought into humanity, we don't trade with them. We put tariffs on any company that moves, to make them "at least" as expensive to produce product and ship it here, as it would be to just produce here. Instead, most of the tariffs are put on American products, going there, and they buy next to nothing. And the trade deficit grows. The debt grows.

[fasttense]

140. Well put liberal Mike. n/t

[okaawhatever]

142. Your numbers are a bunch of crap. We have never even had 47 million manufacturing jobs in this

country. When Reagan left it was just around 19 milion. It's currently around 12 million. Many of those jobs were lost to automation. NAFTA didn't help, but it is only a part of the problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/26/manufacturing-jobs-have-grown-more-under-obama-than-bush/

[NYC_SKP]

103. Thank Bill and Hillary Clinton for that, peacebird.

Not to change the subject away from Obama but looking forward, we really don't need another Clinton in the whitehouse, right?



http://cwalocal4250.org/article?id=a_1047621600-184433&t=h1b&p=304

There are countless examples of Bill and Hillary giving it all away for personal gain and to help their friends.

[peacebird]

126. Exactly.

[whathehell]

127. Exactly..One can't even get a freaking call center job here anymore

and anything else is, gulp, "Protectionism"!!

I never understood what was wrong with a country protecting its citizens jobs -- Other

countries do it.

[blkmusclmachine]

147. Remember when Obama said he was "against" Citizens United???

I think he meant he was against citizens, united.

[whathehell]

149. LOL..

Good one.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Bullshit.

90% of Obama's economic recovery has gone to the rich. Only a fool would believe that TPP puts workers first.

[graegoyle]

10. Right now, I do believe that it puts Americans first..

...on the chopping block. The rest of the world's workers are next to be sacrificed at the altar to the almighty corporations.

[okaawhatever]

144. No, the recovery has gone to those who hold stocks. The recovery has so far mostly shown up in the

stock market. It will take longer term for the wage earner to be able to demand a higher salary.

[Scuba]

3. I'm afraid I can no longer trust Obama on anything.

[msanthrope]

8. Then why be here? If you cannot trust this President enough to wait to read the final

documents before condemning this trade deal, then why are you here?

[Scuba]

9. The fight against people like you.

[msanthrope]

21. You mean Democrats who work voter protection with every election and exhort other

DUers to vote? I've been vocal about my work as an attorney on behalf of many Democratic candidates as a volunteer and as an election monitor.

So why are you here again?

[Fred Sanders]

41. "Why are you here, again?", is an excellent question......seeking and accepting only perfection in Obama?

[840high]

52. I don't expect perfection

in any president. I do want honesty and caring for the people that elected him/her.

[Fred Sanders]

56. And what has Obama done to convince your over 7 years of Democratic Presidency that he does not care? Was it the ACA?

[whathehell]

61. You must be joking --This isn't "Obama Underground", it's "Democratic Underground".

[Beauregard]

182. As a British Subject, the same question could be asked of you.

As an American, I would be hesitant to go on a Labor Party political discussion site in the UK and criticize people for not supporting the Labor PM. It's not my place to do that. You don't seem to have any qualms about doing the equivalent thing here. I wonder why not.

[Beauregard]

68. What is this "Why are you here?" stuff?

Do you have to support all of President Obama's policies to post on DU? You can't criticize a sitting Democratic President? It seems like a lot of people here are pretty critical of the President. So as a newcomer, I'm confused. Can someone explain it to me?

[PSPS]

118. It's the swooner contingent.

They get all wound up when the object of their unconditional adoration is criticized, even indirectly (i.e., whistle blowers who expose various crimes.) They want to turn this into "Obama Underground" and, because of the badly flawed jury system here, many critical posts end up being deleted.

[Skittles]

173. gawd I am fucking SICK of them

PATHETIC people - can't they form their own Tiger Beat club and STAY there?

[antiquie]

27. Obama said we should hold his feet to the fire.

And I don't trust him on trade because of what he did with the public option HE PROMISED would be in any bill he signed for health care reform. Please research the deal he made with private hospitals to kill the public option. You may also be interested in the State of the Union speech where he addresses the need for it several times.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/

Why do you think we have to agree with the president in order to be Democrats?

[stillwaiting]

33. Especially when so many of the Democrats in Congress are fighting him on this issue.

Which happens to involve so MANY issues.

[msanthrope]

39. Well......did we have the congressional votes for public option? No.

so maybe you should have been holding Congress's feet to the fire on the ACA.

as for trade he said he was going to renegotiate NAFTA well there you have it

[antiquie]

54. Public option passed the House.

I've done my research, you can speculate if you want.
And yes, I contacted my Rep at the time and Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein.

Oh, I missed the NAFTA renegotiation. Please give me a link. Thank you.

[Skittles]

172. WTF

WE STAY AND FIGHT - who are to question why we are here???

[Thespian2]

29. Good Response

and you are correct. Why would anyone support a "trade" agreement that destroys America's sovereignty?
The corporate oligarchy already owns America; now, TPP will give the billionaires control of the Pacific rim...TTIP will give them control of Europe...They will control most of the global economy. These are the things Obama is willing to fight extremely hard for...not minimum wage...not unions...not equal pay...not single-payer health option...ask Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren

Obama fights hardest and lies often for the corporate masters...unfortunately the people are probably dumb enough to believe him

[Fred Sanders]

43. Obama's Corporate masters? You made me laugh! The Consumer Protection Bureau made corporations laugh hard also!

[whathehell]

62. You live in the UK -- Are you even eligible to vote?

[Fred Sanders]

65. Welcome to my Ignore List, number 29, been a while since I added anyone.

[Beauregard]

71. Wow! You ignore 29 people? That's a lot!

Why so many?

[whathehell]

73. Yes, that's easier than answering that question, isn't it?

[Thespian2]

122. Thanks, Fred

I appreciate being ignored by you.

[Skittles]

174. it is a badge of honor for critical thinkers

[Cha]

159. I just asked her if she were trying to "shame" you because you're in the UK. I don't see them

calling out those who are from other countries and bashing the President.

[procon]

101. Seriously? Let's have more thinking and less chopping.

Everything the US does affects other countries. Many people hope to immigrate here, have friends and relatives living here, and work within their own countries to bring about changes based on American ideals. Even here, in our own country, there are tens of thousands of people who are not even allowed to vote. Despite the injunctions of any self-appointed gatekeeper, there is no stipulation that anyone needs to be "eligible to vote" to be concerned about what happens in the US, or to add their own views and commentary in DU.

[whathehell]

116. Seriously.

There's a huge difference between a foreign national's "concern"

about American politics and having the gall to lash out at American citizens

for criticising their own president, and if you think the Brits would

tolerate anything similar from us on their politics.

I've got a bridge in New York you should look at.

[procon]

129. Everyone's opinion is equal, and everyone is welcome,

that's always been the Big Tent idealism Democrats have strived for. Are you the new gatekeeper, the arbitrary decider of who gets to participate in the discussions and who can just look but has to keep mum? Where do we email our birth certificates before we get approval to post a POV you object to?

[whathehell]

134. Sez you

and foreign nationals are about as much a part of the Democratic party, as I am a Tory.

[procon]

135. Does someone have to be a member

to believe in the same principles that define us as Democrats? The US works very hard to export democracy around the world, and I'd rather see the all inclusive equality for everyone's views that we Democrats are known for instead of the narrow minded meanness that precedes Republican views. Otherwise, if we set up these false barriers such as you suggested, we risk patterning ourselves after the intolerance of everything that is different that now brands Republicans.

[whathehell]

137. "False barriers"?

Yes, I'll believe that when I get a chance to vote in British elections, and/or

when my opinion is welcomed on British political sites.

[procon]

138. I've never had a problem, so I can't speak to your angst. nt

[whathehell]

139. You're probably never

been to Europe either, right?

[procon]

141. Actually, my family lived in Europe for over a decade.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, yeah? We lived in London hotels on and off between moves to Portugal, Spain, and France. My little brother was born in Madrid, Spain. I've been back several times on vacations, towing DH and kids as well.

[whathehell]

143. That's nice. I've also lived there, made friends there, visited several

European countries, and I'm going again next month.

I even have "right of return" privileges in one country

with the possibility of dual and EU citizenship if I want it.

Maybe not what you wanted to hear either, huh?

[procon]

145. Your assumption didn't bother me as much

as you used that comment thinking to make yourself appear superior. That kind of one-upmanship, is what I didn't expect to hear from a fellow Democrat.

The number of foreign countries that someone claims citizenship to is probably irrelevant to most Americans, most of whom will never be able to afford to travel. Nor do people in other counties have the luxury to come to the US, so does that mean we turn them away and assume that they are somehow less knowledgeable or credible? I say that anyone who embodies the principles we espouse as Democrats, and as Americans, should be a welcomed addition to the discussions here.

[whathehell]

148. That's nice..

but no, sorry, I don't agree that people who do NOT, and

never HAVE lived here, or in most cases even visited, (Sorry, but

I don't know that I agree that most in Europe 'can't afford' to come here)

have the right to "lecture" us on our politics, PARTICULARLY

when it concerns an issue that's largely domestic.

I, myself, can't even imagine being that arrogant

regarding the internal politics of another country, but I guess

that's just me.

As stated, when and if Americans get the same opportunity

in regard to their countries, I'll be fine with it, but that's not

currently the case.

[procon]

152. If you honestly think that what happens here doesn't have

any impact elsewhere, maybe all those international citizenships of yours are all for naught.

Originally, I disagreed with your assertion to another DU member that no "foreign national" was allowed to "...lash out at American citizens for criticising their own president..." by posting here. It sounded very xenophobic when you doubled down to say that anyone who hasn't lived here has no "right to lecture" us on our politics, especially given history of foreign intervention.


" When you called other people "arrogant" simply for being worried about the effects of American policies, your whole argument just collapses. There's no way to ignore the long history of how America's domestic and foreign policies have shaped the entire world. So if you're really all that distressed because you think you can't reciprocate by criticising other countries, maybe your issues are more subjective in nature.

[whathehell]

153. Um, I never said that, either honestly or dishonestly

Sorry if it sounds "xenophobic" to you that I said I find it a tad arrogant

when foreign nationals "lecture" us on our politics, ESPECIALLY domestic

policy, and especially when there's no fair play turn around regarding OUR opinion

about their nation's policies, but before you get your panties ALL in a twist,

you might recall my stating that "I myself couldn't imagine myself being so

arrogant as to lecture other countries about THEIR domestic politics" either.

Get it now?

[procon]

155. You've moved the goal posts.

The disagreements started over who could and could not post here in this forum. You then asserted you couldn't complain in other forums outside the US, and I again opposed the veracity of that claim. Now you've expanded your complaint to include not forums, but "other countries".

No, I don't "get it", because this forum, like every other political forum, is chock full of complainers who tear apart this country, as well as every other nation on earth. Why, if you've a mind to, nothing is stopping you from contacting any country you choose and lambasting them to your heart's content.

Oh, and in case you think I didn't notice, you've moved from passive aggressive rejoinders, to uncalled for sexist potshots.

[whathehell]

160. I think that just means you don't have a pithy retort for me, but whatever

You are, in any case, twisting what I've said, 'cause I never spoke of who "could" anything,

I simply expressed my opinion, which I THINK I'm still entitled to, if I'm not mistaken.

"Passive aggressive rejoinders"?...Sexist potshots?

Oh, hell, I won't even ask...I am a feminist woman, so I'm starting to suspect

you to be the one with "issues" of a more personal nature.

In any case, I'm afraid we may just have to agree to disagree 'cause I got

this Saturday night to enjoy, and that means it won't be spent with you.

See ya.

[Thespian2]

121. I live in Canada.

I am a US citizen, like approximately 400,000 of my fellow Americans living in Canada, and I can vote in the US, but not in Canada.

[whathehell]

123. That's nice. I'm eligible for Dual citizenship myself, and I know the "rules" for most dual citizens

but Fred's profile used to tell us that he lived in the UK.

He scrubbed that information recently, but won't deny he's a Brit when

asked. He just puts you on ignore if and when.

[Cha]

158. What does that have to do with the OP? Are you trying to shame Fred because he's from the UK?

[whathehell]

161. Cha, are you so arrogant as to lecture a foreign country about their domestic policies?

Nah, I didn't think so...Me neither.

[Cha]

162. I don't think he's being "arrogant".. there are plenty of posters here who bash Pres Obama

relentlessly for years.. don't see them being called out. I know I wouldn't be so rude to do it.

Our politics involve the whole Planet anyway.. we're not isolated.

[whathehell]

164. Good for you..

but I disagree.

As to our policies, I understand how our FOREIGN policies involve

other countries, but I do fail to see how our domestic ones do, at least

any more than the flapping of a butterfly's wings and all that good stuff.

In any case, he'd be better off defending Obama's trade policies on his own

turf, and he'll be able to do so soon, as the administration has one for Europe

much LIKE our TPP. Latest word is the Euros aren't too happy about it, though.

No problem, I'll go on their political boards and urge them to sign on...I'm

sure my opinion as an American will be HIGHLY regarded.

[Cha]

165. Sorry, I forgot to include.. plenty of "posters here from other countries" who bash President Obama

and I don't whine about them.

Good on FredSanders posting from England or whatever he posts from.

[whathehell]

167. I don't care if you "whine" about them or not..

and the only reason you're cheering on FredSanders from England

is that Obama can do no wrong by you and he's defending him -- We get it already.

[Cha]

168. I don't really care if you "whine" about them or not.. bc Fred is here to stay..

and we don't always agree.. but, I will stand up for those from other countries to have the right to post on DU.

[appalachiablue]

156. +1

[Fred Sanders]

36. Of course not! What has he DONE for 7 years to earn TRUST? Obviously nothing, right?

If you do not trust you do not trust, that is your right, but at least try explaining why in something more than irrelevant generalities and copy cat right wing rhetoric.

Not trusting the leader of your own party twice elected to the nation's highest office on anything?? Maybe someone needs to consider a new party?

[Beauregard]

76. He's got you on ignore. I'll ask him.

[whathehell]

79. It seems someone should, given the ferocity of his opinions.

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

[Beauregard]

77. Fred, are you really a British subject?

That's fine with me, but is it true?

[Fred Sanders]

78. Ignore List number 30.....

[Beauregard]

80. Gosh, not much of an answer. But OK.

It's your own business. I meant no disrespect. Just curious, because you seem so passionate about US politics. I thought you might be an ex-pat. I guess you won't read this now, since I'm on "ignore" and all.

[whathehell]

100. I think you can take that as a "yes"

[groundloop]

108. That's a wrong-headed sentiment... I disagree with Pres. Obama on this issue but support him on most

NOBODY is going to be right about everything, and no politician is going to be in agreement with my values 100% of the time. This is one issue where I believe President Obama is wrong and I'll write him to explain why I feel he ought to change his position.

But to say that you no longer support Pres. Obama is childish, don't throw away the vast number of things he's done to support our side for a handful of things over which you disagree with him. Do everything you can to make him change his position on this, contact your representatives in Congress and urge them not to support this agreement, etc.

[Scuba]

179. You've got it backwards.

He's done a handful of things that support our side and has a vast portfolio of actions that support the wealthiest.

[msanthrope]

4. I trust this President enough to hold off dismissing the TPP until it's final and I get a chance to

read it.

[corkhead]

12. the republicons are uncharacteristically silent and the Chamber of Commerce loves it

That's about all I need to know.

[msanthrope]

17. Or maybe they are being smart enough to stand back

and let Democrats tear at each other. they certainly aren't going to let President Obama have a public win.

[shawn703]

20. Will we be able to read it before TPA?

If TPA allows TPP to be passed without amendment or the chance for Dems in the Senate to filibuster it to protect us, do you really want to put your faith in a Republican congress and a president concerned about his legacy to look out for you?

[msanthrope]

22. I don't want the TPP subject to amendment. I'd rather go with environmental

protections negotiated by the administration then enviromental protections amended by the Republicans. same thing with reproductive rights riders and wage and labor regulations.

President Obama doesn't strike me as too concerned with his legacy.....I suspect he's already found it in his children.

[shawn703]

23. Why not subject to filibuster?

Senate Democrats wouldn't be able to protect us via amendment as you noted. The only tool they have is the filibuster.

[Divernan]

24. Good response - stopped the TPP cheerleader cold!

[mtasselin]

6. sellout

The president is trying to sellout the American people, myself like many other around the country have been doing our best for several years to tell the American people about TPP. Finally the American people are waking up I voted for him twice and thought we were really going to get change, but as it has turned out he is no different the Clinton when he sold us out on NAFTA, WTO and getting rid of Glass/Steagall, if a republican would have done that we would have been up in arms, but because it was done by a supposedly a democrat everyone his these guys a pass, no more, THE TIME HAS COME TO TAKE BACK THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FROM THESE WALL STREET HACKS.

[msanthrope]

7. Have you considered reading the TPP before forming an opinion on it? I may go against the TPP,

after I read it.

But I think I'm going to wait until it's final, released, and I've read it before I lose my shit.

[Divernan]

31. The old "don't get upset until it happens" defense? How pathetic!

Obviously, it's too horrific to be allowed to see the light of day. I was a staff attorney for 10 years for a state legislature - and I saw that the very worst, bought-and-paid-for, special interest crap was passed at late night sessions with no debate. Oftentimes, the shit was buried in bills so lengthy that none of the legislators had a scintilla of the necessary time to read, let alone research them, before the vote was called. That was the "defense" that leadership provided to members - they could whine that it wasn't their fault - and they HAD to vote for it because the bill included various other (totally unrelated) vital matters.

Beyond pathetic.

[msanthrope]

37. every member of Congress can read the TPP right now.

staff with high enough security clearance can too. so you're concern that they won't have time to read it is pretty well not the point here.....as for stuff being tacked on the beauty of fast track is that it doesn't allow for amendments. so there's your other concern.

me....I prefer to lose my s*** after I've actually read what I'm supposed to be losing my s*** about. but that's just how I roll I guess it's my years as a criminal defense attorney......we don't lose our s*** too easily.

[Divernan]

42. They can only read the current bill, which can be changed at the very last moment.

And if you have any familiarity with the ins and outs of legislative drafting, the last minute insertion or deletion of ONE word (as in substituting "or" for "and&quot can reverse the purpose, scope, etc. of a bill. Like change a penalty from say, $500,000 per occurrence to providing no penalty at all. Or providing that all 5 conditions be met to trigger a penalty instead of any one of five conditions.

[msanthrope]

97. Okay--here's the problem with your claim---it's not a bill. It's a trade agreement right now.

So it only gets changed prior to submission to the Congress through negotiation with the other 11 countries. Not through legislative drafting. Once it is submitted to the Congress, it can be debated up and down, and changed and amended......but not if you have fast track.

Fast track stops legislative drafting. Which is why I support it in this instance.

[Fred Sanders]

99. Exactly. Very similar to the 6 nation Iran nuclear agreement, if not procedurally identical.

I find it oddly comforting that those that shout the loudest about things on DU are soon discovered to know the least about that thing.

[amandabeech]

109. House members don't have much time to read it.

I've been on the Hill, and for House members, fund raising for the next election starts at the victory party for their current election. A lot of what they do has to do with getting re-elected.

They'd have to get together with like-minded members and divide the agreement up, each being responsible for individual sections, and they'd have to rely on whatever staff could read it.

Really, it will not be read or understood except by the corporate crooks who wrote it.

[Fred Sanders]

110. Obama understands it....and despite all the shrill crying otherwise Obama at the table is good.

[procon]

114. It can't be changed. Only an up or down vote is allowed.

"The bill gives Congress an up-or-down vote on trade agreements and doesn’t allow amendments, a process that ensures trading partners that pacts won’t be changed on Capitol Hill."

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/239812-senate-panel-approves-trade-bill


or

"But then, after the countries agree on TPP, Congress could only approve it with an up or down vote — no debate, no changes. That has a purpose — if a deal can be changed after a hard-won compromise is struck, that could make negotiations fantastically difficult."

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/28/8124057/investor-state-dispute-settlement-elizabeth-warren



or Google another source.

[pangaia]

35. By the time you get to read it,

if you ever are actually allowed T read it, it will be too late.

[msanthrope]

38. 60 days. I can handle that. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

47. LOL

King v. Burwell

And even if you did catch all the landmines, once it's on greased rails it's hard to stop.

[pangaia]

86. Too true.

[msanthrope]

94. Were you making a point there? nt

[liberalmike27]

90. It's Been My Experience

That when people hide things from you, keep it in the dark, exclude the people that it concerns, that they know the people will not like it. Why hide it, if it's all hunky-dory? It makes no sense. Let it see the light of day!

[msanthrope]

91. Because it's not finalized. And trade agreements rest with the Executive. nt

[Fred Sanders]

96. Senator Brown introduced over 80 amendments...so of course you are right.

[msanthrope]

98. Fred, did he introduce amendments to Fast Track, or TPP? nt

[Fred Sanders]

104. Would have to be to just the Fast Track legislation because he is without power to amend a trade agreement.

Maybe he did both, but amendments to legislation would have to await the introduction of a Bill.

[msanthrope]

106. 80 amendments? Sort of makes the case for fast track. nt

[whathehell]

120. Yes, if they allowed it. Liz Warren read it but said she isn't allowed to talk about it

on Rachel's show the other night, and since you seem new to this issue, you should know that

even congress wasn't allowed to see it for most of the six years it's been "in discussion".

The only reason it's out in the open now is because WikiLeaks leaked a lot of it.

[msanthrope]

124. It's been available to every member of Congress for a while now---Grayson read it last year.

And Warren isn't allowed to talk to about it until it's released, because it's classified. And then we can all talk about the details.

Same with the Iran deal. Did you have a problem with that?

[whathehell]

125. Right, and Grayson is being gagged too -- Why is it "classified" if it's truly a trade deal?

Only a small percentage is actually about "trade".

[msanthrope]

128. Because currency manipulation, counterfeiting, and drug supply are national

security interests. And, frankly, agreements don't happen without secrecy. Like, Cuba, and Iran.

[whathehell]

130. Currency manipulation was never stated as part of the TPP

It's one of the complaints about it, and if "agreements" don't happen without

secrecy, where does that leave quaint little concepts like "democracy"?

[msanthrope]

131. It's called representative democracy. Take it up with the Founders, who vested this

power in the Executive, not Legislative Branch.

You can't have a legislative body negotiate with foreign powers. That's why we have an Executive branch.

[whathehell]

133. Try again with a real answer

as to why it's called a "Trade Agreement", with so little of it about trade.

[msanthrope]

150. It actually is the real answer....And if you study basic civics, and FDR's

free trade policies, you might have an appreciation for just what trade means in a geopolitical context.

[whathehell]

154. Then you have my condolences..

and the "free trade policies" of FDR's time were NOTHING like ours today,

and he would NEVER put forth a shitty corporate takeover like the TPP.

[Beauregard]

180. +1. nt

[sendero]

11. Big business is for it..

... the Chamber of Commerce (an odious organization if there ever was one, look at their positions) is for it, almost every Republican in congress is for it but really, this is for the 99%.

My ass.

I there was EVER any CONCRETE and IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE that the leaders of this country think the voters are a pack of idiots, this is it.

[Art_from_Ark]

14. It's predicted to be a near zero-sum game in nearly all signatory countries

Zero sum game = Rich get richer, poor get poorer

https://independentaustralia.net/_lib/slir/w700/

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/why-the-tpp-would-be-a-disaster-for-australia,7368

[Fred Sanders]

44. Real FACTS and real EXPERTS and the ACTUAL document? What are you, a liberal??

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

81. Psst, you missed the 'rich get richer, poor get poorer' part of his comment.

That comment you just lauded was NOT supporting the president.

Just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to retract your praise and go back to dogmatic support of the President.

[Fred Sanders]

83. Didn't miss it, I just do not believe in judging all the positions of a person by (mis)judging one.

[Red Oak]

13. Blah, blah, blah...

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, yak, yak, yak...

Let me read the text of the trade agreement and I'll believe you have my best interests at heart.

When a major talking point is the "re-training of American workers..." I'm also more than just a little suspicious.

Were is the clause on the re-training of the Chinese workers?

[Divernan]

26. Welcome to DU - I like the way you think!

[Fred Sanders]

45. You mean the new poster thinking in error - because China is not part of the TPP?

That is the kind of thinking one does NOT welcome.

[Divernan]

49. His/her point was raising the question re "retraining of American workers"

[Fred Sanders]

50. "Blah, blah, blah" is a point? China?

[Red Oak]

171. From President Barack Obama

“If we do not help to shape the rules so that our businesses and our workers can compete in those markets, then China will set up rules that advantage Chinese workers and Chinese businesses,” he said." From President Obama as was promoting Fast Track and TPP.

Now Fred - where is the job training for the Chinese workers if we are going to be so wonderfully successful with TPP?

[amandabeech]

113. That's exactly what I thought about "re-training of American workers!"

Big business was involved in drafting this thing, but why wasn't the AFL-CIO? Aren't they called "big labor?" Why were they left out?

[whathehell]

136. Good question: "Big business was involved in drafting this, but why not AFL-CIO"?

Guess "Big Labor" isn't so "big" after all.

[ibewlu606]

15. Kicked!

I cannot get over how there are STILL Democrats who have not come to grips with reality that Bushama cares not one whit for American workers and especially those of us who are in the labor movement. After all that he has done for the 1% and against the middle-class, it should be apparent what his real agenda is. That is why I will never support HRC who is cut from the same cloth.

[JTFrog]

63. "Bushama"

I imagine you take your chances with that kind of ridiculous name calling here.

[malthaussen]

16. Interesting that this deal is so important to him

I would hardly venture to guess his motivations, but it is intriguing that of all the issues of our times, Mr Obama apparently takes this one very much to heart.

-- Mal

[Divernan]

28. Post presidential ambitions for board appointments/consultancies/etc.

[libdem4life]

32. Yes...that's the main income for ex-Presidents. It's not like they go out and get a job. n/t

[Divernan]

40. He could always start a boutique "non-profit" family foundation,

but again, that would be dependent upon multi-millions in "donations" from One Percenters.

You have to understand that once a politician is in the grip of greed, they can never have enough income. Those board appointments are pretty sweet deals.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-30/board-director-pay-hits-record-251-000-for-250-hours
Board Director Pay Hits Record $251,000 for 250 Hours

May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Pay for directors at Standard & Poor’s 500 Index companies rose to a record average of $251,000 last year, the sixth straight year of increased compensation since federal rules began requiring disclosure.

Boards have boosted pay for their members a total of 15 percent since 2007, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Fidelity National Information Services Inc. topped the list after handing out a $9.5 million retention bonus. News Corp. and Costco Wholesale Corp., which awarded some directors more than $1 million in consulting fees, came in second and third.

The average conceals a wide range: Directors at Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. made the least, at $3,800, while 19 companies paid their directors more than Buffett’s $423,923 compensation as CEO. The average pay for directors is almost six times the $42,700 average salary for private-sector workers holding down full-time jobs.

“Who makes decisions about director pay? The directors,” said Paul Hodgson, director of corporate governance researcher BHJ Partners in Portland, Maine. “Shareholders can sit back and say ‘These directors are being paid so well that I can’t see them ever questioning management on anything because this is a gig they would hate to lose.

[libdem4life]

57. Kind of like a divorce...he wants to continue in the manner has become accustomed. And that ain't

cheap. He doesn't need a Resume. He'll have more choices than he knows what to do with, more than likely. And that is proper, and likely what every other President has done.

I see both sides kind of...and putting it out in "the public" when the public mostly doesn't even care enough to go to the polls, I'm skeptical. I do want to see labor union leaders and environmental leaders and minimum wage proponents see it and report back. That's the way important bills are done.

[4dsc]

18. BS alert.

We should do everything in our power to prevent this BS from occurring.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Thanks for your weekly posting!

Listened this morning and like many on DU and around the country, this is one thing I do disagree with. It's remarkable (or perhaps not) how some DUers ignore everything else beneficial that was done over the past 6 years in order to focus solely on a couple issues. And although agreeing that this issue is critical (and like NAFTA, could have a detrimental impact to workers because "big business" is going to "get theirs&quot , IMHO, the hyperbole about the entire Presidency being a fail because of a few cherry-picked issues, is just silly nonsense.

[amandabeech]

115. I'm from Michigan originally, and JOBS is my big issue.

NAFTA and China in the WTO has absolutely decimated my state, and has affected me and my family adversely.

You'd be surprised how many people think that JOBS is one of their absolutely top issues!

For me, Bill Clinton's presidency was a disaster because of those trade deals.

[BumRushDaShow]

132. No one is denying that "jobs" are a big issue

In fact, this is a HUGE issue... Which is why ARRA was put in place right in the midst of the economic crash, and the auto companies were bailed out, as well as the push for a living wage despite the GOP clowns in Congress. But access to health care is also a big issue (notably for those without jobs), as well as civil rights and voting rights extended to ALL, not just the "select few".

Even if the awful TPP gets torpedoed and is no longer a "thing", there will still be those of us who continue to be followed, harassed, denied employment, denied housing, and denied the ability to vote without encountering more and more hurdles... let alone being denied the right to even walk or ride down the street or visit a store without being hunted, targeted, stopped, arrested, beaten, or killed for what we look like and/or who we are (where even our children are not immune to this travesty).

[KG]

25. anybody that claims that workers on either of Pacific are anything other than an afterthought

in this treaty is delusional or a lair, or both.

[snappyturtle]

30. Until I can read the agreement I'm not taking anyone's word

that it is in the best interest for the American workers. Why can't we read it? Transparency?

[Divernan]

46. What is this "transparency" of which you speak?

I happen to be close to a couple of investigative reporters - the word has been out for years that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has gotten the shortest shrift from the Obama administration of any presidential administration. Responses to requests are taking many months longer than under Bush II, and many are completely ignored.

[Fred Sanders]

48. Your reporters you "happen" to be "close to" - are from Fox? Same meme Fox often spews.

The transparency is in regards to the full text of TPP being available to Congress and their staff.....stay on topic, please.

[Divernan]

51. NPR/Sigma Delta Chi award winners from Society of Professional Journalists

I was privileged to be invited to the annual awards dinner at the National Press Club and met a lot of terrific reporters - none of them from Fox.

[Fred Sanders]

55. Funny, I do not remember seeing you there.

[Divernan]

59. No, my nametag had my real name, not "Divernan/DU"

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:56 AM - Edit history (1)

And I actually still have my name tag - a wonderful evening. It was really inspiring to see the excellent work done by professional journalists in all different size markets and for all different news media. But of course, they all believe in the value of the FOIA - something Obama doesn't respect at all.

[JTFrog]

60. Wait...

You are linking to the John Birch Society? In order to further your Obama bashing? Are you kidding me?

Why on earth would you bring that shit to DU?

This is what people mean when they say the far left goes so extreme that they meet up with the far right.

[Divernan]

64. I googled Obama FOIA/link refers further to USA Today

The coincidence was highlighted in the USA Today article:

But the timing of the move raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, coming on National Freedom of Information Day and during a national debate over the preservation of Obama administration records. It's also Sunshine Week, an effort by news organizations and watchdog groups to highlight issues of government transparency.

"The irony of this being Sunshine Week is not lost on me," said Anne Weismann of the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.

"It is completely out of step with the president's supposed commitment to transparency," she said. "That is a critical office, especially if you want to know, for example, how the White House is dealing with e-mail."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/16/white-house-foia-regulations-deleted/24844253/

and the link I used does not refer to the John Birch Society.

THE POINT IS THAT OBAMA HAS UNILATERALLY AND ARBITRARILY ORDERED THE WHITE HOUSE TO IGNORE FOIA REQUESTS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING POSTING AT DU?

[JTFrog]

66. All that yelling doesn't impress me.

And I post here because I support Democrats.


And the link you used is the official magazine of the John Birch Society. It's a fucking disgusting right wing rag.

[Divernan]

72. NOR THE FACT OBAMA HAS SCRAPPED FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

[Fred Sanders]

74. You are getting close to the heart......

[Unvanguard]

84. That's not even kind of what happened here.

The Freedom of Information Act has provisions controlling which federal institutions are subject to FOIA requests. The D.C. Circuit ruled several years ago that the Office of Administration is not covered, and since then (since before then, actually, because the ruling affirmed an existing policy) that Office has not responded to FOIA requests. All this does is remove the old regulation, which was promulgated on the assumption (now rejected) that the Office of Administration was subject to FOIA.

So there is nothing "unilateral" or "arbitrary" or even all that significant about the administration action you're criticizing here.

[Fred Sanders]

85. The right wing media had a hayday with it though, remember? Funny how someone brought it up.

[Cha]

166. Again.. mahalo JTFrog.. this time for calling out RW sources that duers are only too happy to post

against the President. Not the first time.

[JTFrog]

169. Been shaking my head a lot lately.

[Cha]

176. Does it smell like 2010 with ACA

at all?

[fasttense]

105. Exactly

Why can we NOT read it? We could read the ACA before it passed and every twist and turn of ACA was public knowledge. Why can't we follow the twist and turns of the negotiations over trade? What's just so special about trade that we must be kept in the dark about the negotiations until the final count down of 60 days with no changes allowed?

I do NOT trust anyone who tells me what a wonderful deal I'm getting but then wont let me read the contract.

[Art_from_Ark]

175. Labor groups marched against TPP in D.C. last Monday

http://www.sankeibiz.jp/macro/news/150422/mca1504220500003-n1.htm

[JTFrog]

69. Wow. This thread sure is bringing out the name callers.

Was there a bat signal sent out or something? Why dance around it? just come out and say what you really mean.

(For anyone who doesn't get it: Calling someone Stepin Fetchit is a slur akin to Uncle Tom.)

[Fred Sanders]

75. The thing is, when Obama speaks, speaks, not jabbers, and destroys all the propaganda and disinformation...again....it hurts.

Have pity on them, do not hate them.

[JTFrog]

82. Hard to believe that it still shocks me to see just how far

people will go here with their comments and sources.

[whathehell]

119. Fred, a trade agreement like the TPP is coming to Europe which is much closer to you

Early reviews are the Euros pushing back hard on it, though.

I'd save my energy for that, if I were you.

[Cha]

163. Oh wow.. that was a butt ugly rwanker talking point.. and fucking racist to boot! Thank JTfrog for

calling that ff out.

[JTFrog]

170. I've been trying to lay low...

but sometimes something is so damn outrageous, there is no ignoring it.

Crazy days here on DU.

[Cha]

177. Please don't

lay too low.. this board needs your expertise.

[asiliveandbreathe]

88. Here in the chambers of DU Mr President - all I ask

is the ability to read the articles within the agreement before I sign the papers..just like a real estate transaction, or purchasing an auto, or reading the label of a product before I buy it. I hope you can agree, you would want the same.

Stop making us look around corners for answers, or under stones. The real culprit to all the angst against this TPP agreement is that we have been left to ASSume, and those who were affected by NAFTA have picked up the reigns - and I would expect nothing less of them..they have been hurt....

My family is Union all the way...we don't need anymore attacks than we already have right now....we (our family) will give you the room you need, but, you need to give us the information..wehave trusted your judgement thus far--at least we still have an up and down vote...yea or nay....because we sent representatives to congress to do the most good for the most people (tongue in cheek folk's)

Thank you Mr. President for all that you have done, against all odds..let this be the best part of your legacy...not an agreement that will leave you with NO legacy.....

[Fred Sanders]

89. Your Concern, new poster, is noted....very, very concerned about Obama's entire "legacy" because of a trade deal, are we?

[asiliveandbreathe]

93. Look Fred, did ya' read the whole thoughtful message

Blimey chap, and I was such a fan of yours... - it is okay though, because as things stand right now...there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it - one way or t'other - when I cross the pond perhaps a pint might be in order...

[NYC_SKP]

112. Don't worry about Obama. Worry about Hillary Clinton.

http://cwalocal4250.org/article?id=a_1047621600-184433&t=h1b&p=304

[tomsaiditagain]

92. Its for the wealthiest among us

Thanks O. I knew ya had it in ya.

[NYC_SKP]

102. Hi there, Tilly2020!

Come here often?

Wanna go out sometime?





I like you!

[Fred Sanders]

107. Looks like she left already....

[NYC_SKP]

111. Dang!

Sassy and spunky, lots of attitude.

I think we haven't seen the last of this one!

[raouldukelives]

117. I admit it gives me pause. Why I still hold a lick of trust is beyond me.

But it is there.
Our world has never faced a threat like climate change. It will take the most unified & herculean effort we as inhabitants of this world have ever had to undertake.
We have to start living like our futures depend on it, because they do. Like an obese person cramming themselves daily with boxes of Little Debbie snack cakes, we have to start eating a healthier diet or surely perish before our time.

Remediation, renewable energy, sustainable farming, detachment from carbon energy & major sacrifices across the board for every corporation?
Could this be the retooling? It is my last glimmer of hope. As it assuredly is for every furry critter, every glittering fish, every majestic forest, every laughing child, every thing we have ever recorded or wrote down or imagined or struggled against as bipeds coming to an end.

I want our world to survive. I have to believe the leader of the free world does. I keep hearing serious words about facing the threat. Maybe this will finally be that tiniest of baby steps toward serious action.

Or, will it cement the placement of multinational corporations above the rights of those of us who not only work towards a future but wish to preserve & protect what little is left? The cynic in me is strong but my hope remains.

[blkmusclmachine]

146. http://www.exboyfriendrecovery.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/you-lie.png

[cantbeserious]

151. I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Support Obama On TPP - The 1% Need Even More Wealth

[Cha]

157. I absolutely trust President Obama over those calling "bullshite".. I've seen that crap for 7 years

over everything he does.

Oh this will really piss them off.. have at it, pitch forks and torches..



http://theobamadiary.com/2015/04/25/rise-and-shine-1048/

"If I didn’t think this was the right thing to do for working families, I wouldn’t be fighting for it. We’ve spent the past six years trying to rescue the economy, retool the auto industry, and revitalize American manufacturing. And if there were ever an agreement that undercut that progress, or hurt those workers, I wouldn’t sign it. My entire presidency is about helping working families recover from recession and rebuild for the future. As long as I’m President, that’s what I’ll keep fighting to do."

Mahalo cal~

[Hoyt]

178. America First, sounds a bit nationalistic for me. America Counts, seems OK, though.