pampango
pampango's JournalPoll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Poll: Only The Strongest Obama Supporters Want Him To Have Fast Track AuthorityAmericans are not keen on Congress giving U.S. President Barack Obama what he wants: the authority to negotiate a massive free-trade pact among a comity of Pacific Rim countries and then deliver the results to Capitol Hill for a swift up-or-down vote, known as fast-track authority. Overall, the U.S. public is cooling to the idea of free-trade agreements, believing, unlike they have in the past, that multinational agreements to bring down trade barriers is costing U.S. jobs while favoring large multinational corporations over the interests of small businesses.
U.S. lawmakers are most certainly tracking public sentiment to the subject of free trade and how their support or opposition will play out in their districts as voters head to the polls. And if this national poll is any indication only the staunchest supporters of the president in the Democratic Party agree with the idea of granting the White House fast-track TPP authority.
On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher. And perhaps most important: 66 percent of respondents who identified as independent, meaning they have no party affiliation and are a key voting constituency, oppose the idea.
Among the biggest concerns by respondents for opposing fast-track authority was that they felt it gives the president too much power. But interestingly enough, the second strongest concern among respondents was that workers in TPP countries are paid so little that it’s unfair to U.S. workers to expect them to compete with a flood of imports made under less costly conditions to employers.
http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039
Republican opposition to 'fast track' probably has as much to do with ODS as with anything else though opponents also cited the risk from competition from low-wage workers.
Since most republican politicians support "fast track", this seems to have the potential for another round in their "civil war".
”The only thing that is completely clear – people came out against Yanukovich."
Fantastic pictures and great insight into what is going on.
1."They destroyed the whole city"
Not true. All of the action you see in the pictures are happening on a small square near the entrance to a Dinamo stadium. This is a government sector, there is no intereference in peaceful life outside of this area. ... Even the statue of Lobanovsky, located in the epicenter of fighting has been covered with cloth to prevent damage. Overall, the protesters are very careful regarding property. They've take apart fences and benches, but no windows are broken, noone is vandalizing, and all looters are caught and beaten. So the picture is pretty apocalyptic, but things are not so bad.
2. "This is not a revolution, nothing horrible is happening"
Also not true. This is a real revolution. Decide for yourselves: it's been two months since the center of Kiev has been in the hands of the opposition. Several government buildings are seized. The work of many government offices is paralyzed. The opposition has created barricades, which the authorities have not be able to take. Despite the freezing temps, tens of thousands of people are on the streets for the last two months. The system of defense and supply chain are established. There is perfect order at the protestor HQ, people are fed, dressed, people are pooling money to gather supplies. The most important thing: the people in power are unable to restore order. The police has failed several times at try to storm the barricades. I'll make a separate post about this, but trust me, the only way to dismantle this is with heavy artillery, or drop in commandos. Every day the opposition is securing more territories. What is this if not a revolution?
3. "The entire Kiev is paralyzed, there is no peaceful life for the regular people."
Kiev is living its own life. All stores and cafes are working, people are going to work, study in universities, get married, divorce and even die their own death. Most of the Kiev populace are not inconvenienced. ... Also, those living in the center have troubles with logistics. But the entire Kiev is not paralyzed.
Now, when you know all the truth, let’s see how this day was.
I agree. But, on some level, I think that high standards were Obama's original goal.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/
Obama seems to know that we cannot compete with China by lowering standards. China will always win that race. China is vulnerable to an agreement that raises standards since it cannot join unless it does the same. This is the what European countries get out of the EU. Membership brings no tariff barriers but high labor and environmental standards.
...the negotiation is subject to the U.S. domestic politics. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8113289.html
But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt their growing economies.
The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of those fights ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/administration-is-seen-as-retreating-on-environment-in-talks-on-pacific-trade.html
Those are fantastic graphs. Where did you find them? The rise and fall of the middle class
is closely correlated to those graphs.
Their policy proposals deal with progressive taxation, stronger unions and safety net.
This dangerous trend can be reversed. The good news is that there are clear examples of success, both historical and current. The US and Europe in the three decades after World War II reduced inequality while growing prosperous. Latin America has significantly reduced inequality in the last decade – through more progressive taxation, public services, social protection and decent work. Central to this progress has been popular politics that represent the majority, instead of being captured by a tiny minority. This has benefited all, both rich and poor.
The particular combination of policies required to reverse rising economic inequalities should be tailored to each national context. But developing and developed countries that have successfully reduced economic inequality provide some suggested starting points, notably:
• Cracking down on financial secrecy and tax dodging;
• Redistributive transfers; and strengthening of social protection schemes;
• Investment in universal access to healthcare and education;
• Progressive taxation;
• Strengthening wage floors and worker rights;
• Removing the barriers to equal rights and opportunities for women.
http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en.pdf
The policy recommendations in the report center on progressive taxation, strengthening the safety net ("redistributive transfers", healthcare and education), stronger unions (worker rights and higher minimum wages) and removing barriers to women.
These are the same ideas we see all the time at DU. Shows how far ahead we are.
Do you believe that this would not have happened if China had not joined the WTO?
China joined the WTO at the end of 2001. Russia (the last major country to join) joined in 2012.
From 2001 (the last year that trade with China was not governed by the WTO) we imported about $102 billion from China. In 2011 we imported about $399 billion. Our imports increased by a factor of 4.
In 2001 we imported about $6 from Russia. In 2011 (the last year before Russia joined the WTO) we imported about $34 billion. Our imports increased by a factor of almost 6.
Our imports from China are almost 12 times what they are from Russia (our exports to China are 12.5 times what our exports to Russia are) but China has 10 times the population that Russia has. In 2011 our trade with China was 78% imports and 22% exports, while our trade with Russia was 80% imports and 20% exports.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html
I am not sure you can make a case that not joining the WTO would have slowed down China's industrialization or trade growth or improved his environmental record. Not being in the WTO did slow down Russia's trade growth. I see not reason to believe that keeping China out of the WTO would have slowed it down any more than it did Russia.
What "non-centrist" policy would have prevented China's economic and trade growth and environmental damage? A Cuba-style trade embargo? That hardly sounds like a liberal policy proposal.
Indeed, but they are not particularly worried about or restricting trade, 'free' or otherwise.
They do have strong legal support for unions (no 'right-to-work' in Germany), high and progressive taxes and a strong safety net. Rather than spending progressive energy battling something that progressive countries embrace, we should work to repeal Taft-Hartley, reenact progressive taxes and strengthen the safety net and corporate regulation.
Service jobs are not interchangeable. Plumbers, mechanics, lawyers, engineers. There are so many
types of service jobs that to say "service jobs are "interchangeable" is ridiculous. I worked some manufacturing jobs when I was younger and nothing I did could not have been done by anyone else either. I was quite 'interchangeable' but that does not mean that manufacturing jobs are all interchangeable. If you have a study comparing the interchangeability of manufacturing vs. service jobs I would love to see it. If this is just your "common knowledge" that is another thing.
All developed economies are becoming service economies in terms of employment, even while manufacturing output continues to grow. All of the other countries on the chart below are more progressive than the US so their middle class remains strong even they, too, are becoming 'service economies'.
You can't by force of will recreate a manufacturing-based economy any more that you could have recreated an agriculture-based economy a hundred years ago. You can create a progressive society based on tax, union, regulation and safety net policies that recreates a strong middle class. It has been done in many countries. We do not have to reinvent the wheel or focus on fixing something (trade policy) that progressive countries embrace.
As is typical, Perot was a republican politician who used existing trends to appeal to fear-monger.
That hardly makes him a genius. It certainly does make him a republican.
Manufacturing jobs have been declining in the US (and in every other developed country) since about 1955. Predicting that an existing trend will continue does not require a PHD in economics. Blaming that trend and its continuation on a policy that happened 40 years later is more fear-mongering than science.
Our average manufacturing wage now is $19.60 an hour. I had no idea that workers in the 3rd World were doing that well in 2013 but, if Ross is "right", they must be.
The upturn in manufacturing wages looks like in started in about 1995. Hmmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot#Early_political_activities
Apparently not a big fan of non-whites. I am not aware that he opposed the US-Canada free trade agreement which had been in existence for many years when NAFTA was proposed.
NYT: Administration Is Seen as Retreating on Environment in Talks on Pacific Trade
The Obama administration is retreating from previous demands of strong international environmental protections in order to reach agreement on a sweeping Pacific trade deal that is a pillar of President Obama’s strategic shift to Asia, according to documents obtained by WikiLeaks, environmentalists and people close to the contentious trade talks. ... Environmentalists said that the draft appears to signal that the United States will retreat on a variety of environmental protections — including legally binding pollution control requirements and logging regulations and a ban on harvesting sharks’ fins — to advance a trade deal that is a top priority for Mr. Obama.
The documents consist of the environmental chapter as well as a “Report from the Chairs,” which offers an unusual behind-the-scenes look into the divisive trade negotiations, until now shrouded in secrecy. The report indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations. The United States is also insisting that the nations follow existing global environmental treaties.
But many of those proposals are opposed by most or all of the other Pacific Rim nations working on the deal, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Peru. Developing Asian countries, in particular, have long resisted outside efforts to enforce strong environmental controls, arguing that they could hurt their growing economies.
The report appears to indicate that the United States is losing many of those fights, and bluntly notes the rifts: “While the chair sought to accommodate all the concerns and red lines that were identified by parties regarding the issues in the text, many of the red lines for some parties were in direct opposition to the red lines expressed by other parties.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/us/politics/administration-is-seen-as-retreating-on-environment-in-talks-on-pacific-trade.html
This is bad news. If there are not strong, enforceable provisions on the environment, labor rights and currency manipulation, among others, this is a bad deal.
I'm glad that the leak "indicates that the United States has been pushing for tough environmental provisions, particularly legally binding language that would provide for sanctions against participating countries for environmental violations." However, if the other countries oppose this the agreement should die. Perhaps the publicity that this release causes will shame some of the governments' lack of support for strong environmental protections.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: Xenia, OH
Member since: Tue Sep 19, 2006, 04:46 PM
Number of posts: 24,692