The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is getting brutal on the left, and Out Of Damns To Give Mode(tm) President Obama is standing firm on getting fast track authority for it against his critics in the party.
“When people say that this trade deal is bad for working families, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Obama said Thursday. “So I take that personally. My entire presidency has been about helping working families.”
“Some of these folks are friends of mine. I love them to death. But in the same way that when I was arguing for health care reform I asked people to look at the facts – somebody comes up with a slogan like ‘death panel,’ doesn’t mean it’s true. Look at the facts. The same thing is true on this. Look at the facts. Don’t just throw a bunch of stuff out there and see if it sticks,” the president added.
And on Friday, Obama made a surprise appearance on a conference call with reporters and Labor Secretary Tom Perez. Obama took what seemed to be a shot at liberal lawmakers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and progressive groups for “send[ing] e-mails out to their fundraising base that they’re working to stop a secret deal.” There’s “nothing secret” about the treaty, he said.
But his critics aren’t backing down either, in fact they are truly pissed off over this.
“Belittling progressives who represent the overwhelming majority of Americans in opposition to a trade deal written by corporations in secret is a return to the worst days of this White House,” said Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green. “They are back to caving to corporate interests, forfeiting opportunities for greatness, and, in this case, costing millions of peoples their jobs and economic well being if successful.”
The most frustrating thing, as some liberals see it, is that the White House is spending huge political capital to pass a trade deal the base does not support, while not doing enough in their mind to support liberal priorities.
Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown called president’s priorities “maddening.” “I think if you could get my colleagues to be honest, on the Democratic side, with you – and I think you can mostly – they will say they’ve been talked to, approached, lobbied and maybe cajoled by more cabinet members on this issue than any issue since Barack Obama’s been president,” Brown told reporters Thursday. “That’s just sad.”
Dan Cantor, national director of the progressive group Working Families, said Obama is “wrong” on trade. “If Democrats ever wonder why some people think both parties are in the pocket of Wall Street, secretive trade deals like this are one are a big reason why,” he said.
And David Segal, who runs the Internet freedom group Demand Progress, which also opposed TPP, turned Obama’s comments on their head. ”It’s clearly Obama who doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to trade – just look at his disastrous Korea Free Trade Agreement, which he claimed would create 200,000-plus new American jobs but in just a few years has already cost us 60,000 and increased our trade deficit by billions,” Segal said.
All I see is a large, generally-round shaped arrangement of liberals opening fire towards the center and wondering why Republicans control the Senate, 31 Governor’s mansions, the largest House margin since the Gilded Age, and a bunch of state legislatures.
You know what, maybe this trade deal does suck, and maybe we learned nothing from NAFTA, and maybe it’s going to be terrible. But after six years of being in the White House and actually getting us out of the black hole the Republicans put us in, I’m kind of willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. I mean if you’re a liberal, and you’re still having trust issues with him, to the point that you’re making comments about how “sad” he is, you might want to take a step back and ask yourself why you feel that way, and what that sounds like to other people.
Also if Sen. Brown’s comments are correct, that Democrats “will say they’ve been talked to, approached, lobbied and maybe cajoled by more cabinet members on this issue than any issue since Barack Obama’s been president” what happened to “we don’t know what’s in this trade deal because it’s a secret!” and stuff?
Whatever, fight it out downstairs in the comments.
[UPDATE] Well you certainly are doing that. Quite a few of you are taking the notion that I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt very, very fucking personally, by the way.I find that interesting.
chopper
while I’m not a fan at all of huge international trade deals, some of the opposition on the left to this one does sound like the ‘kill the bill’ dudes back in 09.
that being said, while I give O the benefit of the doubt on a lot, he’s not necessarily some flaming liberal when it comes to trade so there’s a good solid chance that is deal will truly suck.
Jay B.
Trust issues? What the fuck? You really are the worst. Of COURSE the trade deal will be terrible, otherwise it would have been debated in public. Doesn’t mean Obama is the most evil of all the Democrats and people on Earth. It means it’s a bad idea (and NAFTA was a bad idea Clinton embraced with all of the same technocratic “trust us” logic) and people can disagree with the fucking thing. Brown and Warren are right. Obama and the Administration are wrong. It’s not civil war for christsake.
Peale
I guess I’ll change the topic a little. I know we have a few Canadian, a couple of Australian and more Malaysian commenters than one can shake a fist at. I assume that the secrecy about the TPP is true for those participants as well. How is that playing in those countries?
Rob in CT
Damnit, O, we can’t look at the facts (except those bits provided by Wikileaks)!! That’s one of the big issues here!
Peale
@Rob in CT: Exactly,. Every time facts emerge, someone has to fly to Ecuador for assylum.
Jim C.
Racing towards the center-right has worked out so well for the Blue Dog caucus. Republican lite has been a winning strategy over and over again.
I ABSOLUTELY like and trust President Obama. He’s accomplished some absolutely amazing things during his time in office. But this is the sort of White Whale he’s been chasing his entire two terms in office….the reasonable Republican, the Grand Bargain, etc.
I trust Obama, but not more than I trust the entirety of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And Obama’s tendency to punch leftward has worn on me over the years.
I could very much make the argument that Republicans control all of those offices you mention because Obama was not liberal enough during his first two years in office. He tried to hard to get the Olympia Snowes and Grassleys and Baucuses of the world onboard with the ACA and gave up to quickly on getting singlepayer or a public option and therefore demoralized the base.
If all the liberals in the party seem to hate something and all the Republicans seem to finally be wanting to vote for something that Obama wants, why shouldn’t I be a little leery of it?
Chyron HR
Woah, guys, April 20th was on Monday.
FlipYrWhig
Adam Green is fucking ridiculous and has always been fucking ridiculous. Hadn’t heard his name since he, Hamsher, and Aravosis were peas in a pod.
Samuel Knight
Uhh,
I think the Democrats are going by experience.
In 1994 they passed NAFTA – and got smoked in the mid-terms.
In 2010, they followed the President’s lead and got smoked in the mid-terms.
2012, the President won, so that was nice.
But in 2014, the party got crushed again. Now I think the Senators did it to themselves by getting the President to wimp out on immigration.
And the details ARE secret. But they have been leaked and every single poll shows that the TPP is very unpopular. They want to win the next round – and this isn’t helping them. They know if they vote for this the GOP will hang it like an anchor around their necks.
So no, they’re not going to follow the President on this one. And would really like it if the President just dropped it.
And yes, Jay B is right – the bottom line is that everything we’ve seen is that TPP is really awful public policy. So Dems shouldn’t support it. Not that hard, eh?
Turgidson
@Jay B.:
It still will be, for three months, when it’s fully drafted.
I mean, I’m inclined to line up with Team Warren on the substance of this based on how other trade deals have turned out and early analysis of this one I’ve been reading, but I don’t think Obama is out of line to push back on some of the cheap shots he’s taking from his “allies.” I don’t think he’d be putting himself out there like this if he didn’t sincerely believe what he was saying. Doesn’t mean he’s right, of course.
They need to just get into a conference room and have it out in private, instead of insulting each other in the media. It’s gone beyond a polite but firm disagreement among smart, well-intentioned people and turned into an embarrassing pissing match.
Cacti
TPP is the new public option.
japa21
Many of the people complaining about the TPP sound the same as the people wanting to stop the Iran negotiations. They lambast the deal saying it sucks, and then complain it must suck because they aren’t giving us the details.
Both say we should debate it in public, even though the negotiations aren’t even done.
I am not particularly a proponent of fast tracking it, although that has been done many times in the past. But fast tracking does not mean that the Senate doesn’t have a chance to review it.
I’ve heard a lot of hyperbole about what is in it, yet I haven’t seen anything that actually backs up the hyperbole.
Brachiator
Shit, progressives deserve to be belittled. They can’t get elected to public office, but somehow insist that they represent Americans. How does that work, exactly?
There is all this braying about secret deals, but how open is the Progressive Change Campaign Committee?
The deal might be bad, but I don’t have any faith in the ability of these self-appointed goobers of progressive politics to ferret out the facts.
Betty Cracker
I trust Obama more than any president we’ve ever had, but I don’t trust him absolutely nor agree with everything he does. To the extent this deal might suck for the beleaguered working class, I’m GLAD liberal congresscritters are speaking up to oppose it. That is their job.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with Brown’s “sad” comment either — his point was that of all the many important issues we face, THIS is the one the administration has focused on the most. If true, “sad” isn’t a bad description for that state of affairs.
As for the proposed deal itself, if anyone has a good source on what is currently known about it, I sure would love to see a link. I’ve been able to find precious little unbiased info online.
Cacti
@japa21:
Nope, just means that the other parties will be negotiating directly with the Executive Branch, rather than the 100 individual members of the Senate.
Myiq2xu
If this trade deal bothers you just drink some more Obama Koolaid and you’ll feel all better.
the Conster
@Jim C.:
Oh fer fuck sake. That fucking nonsense, still???
different-church-lady
@japa21:
But you have the hyperbole! Why would anyone be interested in more than that?!?
Cacti
@Myiq2xu:
A fine example of the typically erudite and thoughtful concerns of the combustible hair brigade.
Bobby Thomson
Isn’t there a middle ground between “I just think we should support the president and everything he does” a la Britney Spears, and Jane Fucking Hamsher?
The deal isn’t really a trade deal, mainly has to do with IP, was drafted in secret, is being sold as something it’s not, and is shitty politics. I support probably at least 75% of what this president does, and think on balance he’s been pretty damn good. I also think this deal smells.
Cacti
@the Conster:
See post #11.
BobS
@Jim C.: This.
japa21
@Samuel Knight: Don’t you think it is possible the party got smoked in 2010 and again in 2012 partially because they didn’t follow the President’s lead. I don’t remember too many Dem candidates out there defending the ACA. In both elections the President was out there going after the GOP for being irresponsible. Didn;t hear too many Dems doing that.
No, the Dems were to afraid of being called confrontational and bullies.
And as far as the President acving on the public option or single payer. I get so sick of that meme. First of all if the term single payer had even been uttered by him or any other prominent Dem, the ACA would never have been passed. And pushing too hard too long on the public option would also have doomed the ACA. But sure, complain about that and don;t worry about all the people who still wouldn’t have health insurance coverage but do because Obama “caved”.
Arclite
Wow, that’s some serious Stockholm syndrome right there. What’s the old Reagan saw? “Trust, but verify.” If the deal is so great, make it public. I love much of what Obama has done and tried to do, but he’s done some shitty things too like his prosecution of leakers and the NSA data collection and the continuing drone strikes. So, yeah, there are reasons to want to look into this in more detail and not just trust him. The corporations have had access to this, but not the workers. That’s BS.
Cacti
@japa21:
Strangely enough, the “unpopular” President seemed to have no trouble stomping the GOP into the ground when he was actually on the ballot.
jl
I trust Obama to say what he thinks and, by usual politician standards, be quite honest. But that does not mean that I have to agree with him on every issue.
I think Obama, like Bill Clinton, were seriously wrong on several issues, that hurt them. And I think to myself, “Well, I trust them, I trust their good intentions, they are mostly right but on some issues they are simply mistaken’.
I think the Obama was wrong on macroeconomic policy that is partly responsible for the very poor performance of Democrats in midterms, when it is very important to have general mood of country happy to increase turnout. The worse and slowest postwar recovery in terms of jobs and working people’s incomes was due to poor macroeconomic policy and the Democrat’s inability to say ‘I told you so’ and be able to squarely and simply blame GOP obstruction. Though I admit that is just my opinion.
I don’t think what we see is a Democratic circular firing squad, I think we see two camps that disagree. That stuff happens sometimes among people who take policy seriously, and have committed themselves to basing their popularity on good policy that will improve the ‘general welfare’ which should be familiar phrase to true patriots who honor the Founders and Framers.
Now, if your party is devoted to dishonest BS, and usually resolving thier own disagreements with dishonest BS, then that does look different.
kc
How rude of liberals to argue about policy that affects working people, instead of examining their white privilege.
Belafon
@Jay B.:
The president negotiates, and the Senate approves it. If you didn’t mind him doing that for Iran, you can’t suddently hate it for this.
We have a mechanism in place for rejecting it.
kc
“look at the facts”
What facts?
kc
I mean, I like Obama, voted for him twice, etc, but anyone who wants me to support this flipping trade deal is gonna have to do better than “Obama says so.”
Cacti
@kc:
Because what group is more representative of lunch pail working stiffs than the internet left?
LOL
chopper
@Arclite:
I assume it will be made public once it’s actually written up. It’s not like the senate is going to be voting on it tomorrow.
Samuel Knight
One other note – the real question shouldn’t be why is the left – or really almost the entire Democratic party going nuts about the TPP? That’s normally the rule of thumb when something is extremely unpopular.
The big question has to be – why is the White House pushing this so hard?
The President has made clear that he’s personally invested in it. I’m sure a few Senators would love to find out why he is.
And I’d guess most Senator would guess that the President is just doing the old neo-liberal assumption that trade = good. And their point is that this agreement has very little to do about trade and a lot to do about the freedom of capital.
gene108
On the Pro-TPP side, countries in Asia want stronger trading relationships with the USA, because otherwise they will get dominated by China.
Secondly, NAFTA was negotiated by GHWB. Like the Iran deal nuclear non-proliferation deal being hashed out by the Obama Administration, if an on going negotiation is going to be dropped, when the Presidency changes parties, what is the point of negotiating with the USA?
There were reasons to pass NAFTA other than wanting destroy manufacturing in the USA.
The odds are the next President is going to have to push the TPP through Congress.
Thirdly, the only reason manufacturing jobs paid better than stock-boy at Wal-Mart is labor fought for decades to get manufacturing outfits to pay a living wage.
I think a large swath of the America public are blaming trade deals for issues that would still exist, if we had record high tariffs, such as stagnant wages and lack of middle class jobs for many people.
kc
@FlipYrWhig:
Fine. Explain to us why we should support this, then.
Lev
What I find interesting is the notion of “benefit of the doubt.” Barack Obama is a smart man and often has his heart in the right place, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t blown it in major ways before. Typically this sort of talk is indicative of someone confronted with a difficult problem and tries to resolve it in terms of personality, rather than in terms of logic. “Well, the president probably has more information than we do, so bombing Libya is probably the right thing to do.” Not so much. Intelligence services in this country have never been known for giving our leaders exceptional information on foreign crises. Often, not much more than media reports. But even that’s more of a case than saying that Obama should be trusted on the basis of his personality, when the stakes could be calamitous.
It may well be that Democrats’ lack of unity contributes to the lack of political success (though I don’t grant that, considering that Republicans under Ronald Reagan had the same exact pattern of gains and losses as Obama’s Democrats–it’s an in-party thing). But it’s certainly the case that simply dismissing logic (as the author does here) with an appeal to charisma is why the Democratic Party is ideologically suboptimal.
Cacti
I trust Elizabeth Warren completely.
It only took her till the tender age of 46 to realize that the GOP is bad for the country, after she’d voted twice for Reagan and Poppy Bush.
What’s that saying about ex-drunks make the most obnoxious teetotalers?
Belafon
@kc: I get the odd feeling that people think that once the negotiations are done, the new trade agreement goes into effect. It does not. It gets shown to the public and the Senate will vote on it after I think 60 days.
gene108
@Samuel Knight:
From last year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-is-on-the-right-course-with-the-pivot-to-asia/2014/04/20/ed719108-c73c-11e3-9f37-7ce307c56815_story.html
Obama has staked a good chunk of his foreign policy on the TPP.
*************************************
Also, if any Canadians are lurking, how has NAFTA affected you guys 20 years later? I don’t tune in to Canadian news much, but is as unpopular there as it is in the USA?
Lt. Condition
In a world where countries are being routinely sued over public-interest regulations under trade deals, I fail to see how trust is even relevant here. I trust Obama, largely, but the issue here isn’t the content, it’s that the content can’t be openly debated due to secrecy.
Loomis over at LGM has a good writeup about this. I trust Obama’s intention, but I don’t *blindly* trust anyone.
Samuel Knight
Japa21 – Wouldn’t disagree that the Dems should have fought harder with the President in 2010 but then would have to say that a lot of that was because of the President following neo-liberal economics in the Great Recession. And now, he’s clearly following that again.
I thin jl got it “I trust Obama to say what he thinks and, by usual politician standards, be quite honest. But that does not mean that I have to agree with him on every issue.”
On the Iranian agreement the US was behind the 8-ball because the Russians and Chinese were clearly going to break ranks anyway. But in the TPP the US is still the biggest market in the world so the US has a lot more leverage.
Belafon
@kc: Not going to becase “IT” doesn’t exist yet.
jl
@Samuel Knight:
” And I’d guess most Senator would guess that the President is just doing the old neo-liberal assumption that trade = good. And their point is that this agreement has very little to do about trade and a lot to do about the freedom of capital. ”
Could be. However, trade barriers, as conventionally defined, for countries in this deal are already quite low. Not much to gain from lowering them further. Most important provisions are strengthened patent copyright laws which, in the short term, actually restrain trade by imposing more monopoly power. Also strengthened de facto corporate investment insurance when they see anything they don’t like that interferes with their ideas about what their profits should be in operations in other countries.
So, maybe Obama has a different idea about the net benefits of those deals. Maybe he thinks it gives the US more advantage, since its companies has more resources to sue or reap monopoly IP and drug company profits which will benefit US citizens. I have heard theory floated that there is strategic positioning for bargaining with China in the future.
Who knows? But seems to be a real disagreement over it.
Edit: ACA was and still is unpopular too by most public opinion standards, Do we worry so much now about Obama’s decision to press ahead to see what he could get? I never did, but I felt health care and finance reform was extremely important and Obama was right on the policy. I disagree wrt to TPP.
Linnaeus
I’m with Betty Cracker (and a few others) here. Trust doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. I trust Obama a lot more than I would a lot of other politicians on the issues, but he is not infallible and trusting him does not mean we can’t take a critical look at his actions. I have no problem with people voicing concerns about and criticism of the TPP negotiations – that’s the kind of pressure that needs to be put on elected officials.
different-church-lady
@Lev: Not a bad set of points. However, the “trust” issue cuts both ways.
I think it’s safe to say nobody here in BJ has actually read any drafts of the TPP. It’s probably further safe to say that most do not have direct experience in international trade (although some might).
Yet some of those people will assert that the deal must stink because the right people are against it and the wrong people are for it. Without any direct knowledge of the deal, how do they arrive at this conclusion?
Trust. In the absence of concrete information they have chosen to trust the views of one set of people over another.
Giving Adam Green the benefit of the doubt isn’t all that different than giving Barak Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Oh, I’m sorry, did I ruin the basis of everybody’s entrenched positions?
japa21
@kc: I don’t get this response. There is a difference between saying don’t shout down something that isn’t even finished yet and about which almost no details have been made known and saying you should support that same thing.
I am not going to condemn the TPP because I don’t know what I would be condemning. I have heard good things and bad things but nothing definite. At the same time I am not going to support it for the exact same reason.
Belafon
@Samuel Knight: Which neo-liberal economic policy did he follow in 2009?
japa21
@different-church-lady: This 10,000 times.
mai naem mobile
Repeating some of what I see in the comments. I trust Obama but he also hired Geithner, Summers and Emanuel. Christine Roemer was ignored. As a group I trust Sherrod Brown, Harry Reid(!!!), Warren and Bernie Sanders more than Obama. Also too, I would like to know who’s been negotiating this deal and kind of look up their background. Kind of OT I’ve been looking for some towels. 80 % appear to be made in China. The rest India, Pakistan and Turkey. I want to know what the fcuk we’re selling to China and India. And,no, fcuking Caterpillar earthmovers aren’t going to cut it.
BobS
@Cacti: This wasn’t that clever the first time it was written, but keep recycling it — you’ll have Axel Foley slapping his knee.
Belafon
@mai naem mobile: Cisco routers.
Samuel Knight
Gene 108 – quick note that there were actually 2 NAFTAs. The first was the free trade deal between the US and Canada. Difficult adjustment for many Canadian companies but overall seems to have been a plus.
Then they added Mexico in 1994 and that was sold as a great thing.., But Mexico’s economy collapsed soon after, the peso had to be devalued, none of the environmental and labor standards seem to have worked, and generally it turned into a mess.
different-church-lady
@Belafon: And censored Facebook.
Tractarian
@gene108:
This. The transition to a service-based economy would have happened whether or not NAFTA passed.
It’s remarkable to me how many liberals automatically view any “trade deal” as a giveaway to the 1%. Hardly. The 1% will be fine, with or without NAFTA or TPP. It’s those on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder that will benefit most from more trade and the growth that comes along with it.
I’m not saying things aren’t shitty for poor people. Of course they are. But trade deals aren’t to blame. Instead, blame the internet, shipping containers, growth in third-world countries… all the factors that mean the 20th century paradigm (where unions ensured that even the least skilled workers earned living wages) is a thing of the past.
kc
@BobS:
Surprised AF hasn’t seen the bat signal yet.
low-tech cyclist
I just sent the following comment to the White House:
Is there an online location where I can see the text of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership?
The President has asked critics of the TPP to “Look at the facts.” I am ready and willing to do this.
Just point me to the URL, so I’ll know Sen. Sanders is lying when he says he has to go to a secure room to read the text of the treaty.
Thanks,
[me]
japa21
@Samuel Knight: Okay, tell me what economic policies you would have liked to see Obama follow and then also tell me how he could have gotten those policies into actions with a Congress that is absolutely and totally opposed to any economic improvement while a blah man is President (and that includes some Dems). The problem is not what he did do, which is wring out just about as much as he could, but that Dems didn’t get out there and trash the GOP for wanting an even worse economic catastrophe to hit the country just so they could be elected.
Samuel Knight
Balafon – Geitner and Summers. Remember the whole debate on really going for a Reinvestment package focused on infrastructure, rather than a “Stimulus” package?
Cacti
My complete trust for all things liberal is also placed in reformed Rush Limbaugh clone Ed Schultz.
I especially admired his progressive stance of encouraging Democrats not to vote in 2010.
different-church-lady
@Tractarian:
Me, I blame the glut of MBAs and get on with my day.
kc
@different-church-lady:
Wow, you kicked that giant straw dude’s ass.
elm
If TPP gets fast-track authority, it is going to pass.
I don’t see where there’s anything in it that I want or ought to support. I do see how a deal negotiated with principally business input is bound to be bad for labor (here and abroad) and the environment.
Tariffs are low already, so what’s the point?
I suppose this will make it more profitable to run a sweatshop in Vietnam or to export my job abroad. But why would I want that? Disney can prosecute trademark and copyright infringers in Asia… woo-hoo.
different-church-lady
@kc: Ah. So tell us about your experiences in international trade.
Ruckus
@Jim C.:
If all the liberals in the party seem to hate something and all the Republicans seem to finally be wanting to vote for something that Obama wants, why shouldn’t I be a little leery of it?
My feelings exactly.
I also go with the negotiated in secret. Of course the negotiations can’t be on CSpan, the world doesn’t work that way. And I can see wanting fast track so that the monkeys in congress can’t fuck it up, but so few of these international trade deals has ever been actually good in the end (and I must say, not as bad as the detractors say either) I wonder why there is such a push by the President to seemingly run roughshod over seemingly everyone else to get it done? I want to trust him, I mostly like him and his results (a lot actually) and I respect him greatly but putting too much trust in any politician seems to be a fools errand. Isn’t that why we supposedly have checks and balances in our government? It can be messy but it can also limit the amount of crap we have shoved down our throats.
Heliopause
Trust? What’s trust got to do with it? Didn’t you read what he said? There’s nothing secret about TPP and all you have to do is “walk over” and read the thing. So why don’t you do that and tell us what’s in it, then we can make up our minds.
kc
@elm:
Thank you; no shit.
japa21
@low-tech cyclist: You do realize that there is no prosed text yet, that it is still being worked on. Yes Sanders gets to see some of the langauge that is being proposed, but not yet decided on.
I trust many of the folks on both sides of this argument. And all of them have some motivation for their positions and some of those motivations are personal.
Belafon
@Samuel Knight: Wouldn’t investing in infrastructure be a stimulus package?
Cacti
@different-church-lady:
He’s dined at the International House of Pancakes?
Bobby Thomson
This alone is enough reason to oppose it. At least now, corporations have to buy politicians, rather than simply going to some unelected group to do away with pesky regulations they think cut into their margins.
kc
The president noted that the text of the TPP has been available “for weeks.”
Awesome. Where I can I find it?
Fair Economist
@Bobby Thomson:
This. Also This on the deal not being a trade deal. It’s mostly about requiring all countries to follow the most insane and restrictive copyright and patent laws any of the countries.
Side note: don’t call it intellectual property, because ideas can’t be property. Use of ideas is not exclusionary. It’s a government-granted monopoly. The monopoly itself can be property, but it’s not intellectual, it’s political.
BobS
@kc: He may have been referring to the parts WikiLeaks released.
kc
@Bobby Thomson:
Although this isn’t by itself a reason to oppose it, let me just put it out here for the more personality-driven commenters here.
Bobby Thomson
@Tractarian:
Take your warmed over Reaganesque trickle down crap and shove it back up your ass.
Elie
@jl:
Can you be specific about the macroeconomic policy in question that he was wrong about?
Mike J
@mai naem mobile:
Movies and jets.
trollhattan
Loomis is a-gin it and quotes New York’s AG.
Villago Delenda Est
I do not trust the vile parasites who run our corporations.
And fuck Hollywood.
BobS
@Bobby Thomson: We’re seven years into his presidency — that “warmed over Reaganesque trickle down crap” i.e. neoliberalism is what the guy believes in shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.
Myiq2xu
@Cacti: My hair is long gone. Back in 2008 I was running around with my hair on fire warning people that Obama was in the pocket of Wall Street.
Elie
@Mike J:
And hopefully a lot more over time. They are a market we are interested in building as they grow their middle class, etc. Is that wrong? Is that something that you believe is a bad thing?
schrodinger's cat
@mai naem mobile: Fast food and soda. Many more fat Chinese and Indian people in the cities, now.
Mike J
@Elie: No, I’m generally in favor of trade deals. The biggest gripe I’ve seen about it is that it requires other countries to make their IP laws as stupid as those in the US are.
While I agree the US has some of the dumbest IP laws on the planet, I don’t see how getting China to respect the one thing we’re still really good at selling hurts the US.
joel hanes
I’m kind of willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt.
I’ve been practicing this, mostly, for over six years.
On many things, the O-man has been wonderful beyond my hopes.
But the corporate drones in the national party seem to act as blinders on certain issues.
Rahm was a horrible mistake; Geithner almost as bad.
HAMP was a needless failure, and that can’t be blamed on Congress.
Arne Duncan is completely wrong about pretty much everything in his demesne
And Obama got rolled in the negotiations that ultimately produced sequestration.
But this is the worst.
The copyright and patent (leaked, draft) provisions are completely wrong-headed, unless you’re a fan of the DMCA.
The environmental provisions of TPP seem toothless, and designed actually to weaken stricter national and state laws.
I mean if you’re a liberal, and you’re still having trust issues with him
Oh, bite me.
I oppose this because of the (leaked) substance, not because of “trust issues”.
different-church-lady
@Elie: Fun facts about (major American consumer audio manufacturer I used to do a lot of work for):
* In the 90s they were the #1 audio brand in Japan. (I don’t know if this is still true.)
* In the late ’00s they were about to open almost as many company owned retail stores in China as they had in North America.
Anecdotes, not data. But factual anecdotes.
Elie
Since this thing is not finished yet – that is the wording is still being put in place. And since we/the public will be able to see it and the Senate will have to approve it.. why are some already sure it should be killed?
Roger Moore
@japa21:
But the debate that’s going on right now isn’t even about the details of the deal. It’s about fast-track authority for the negotiations, i.e. the ability of the executive branch to negotiate it without the Senate jogging their elbows. IOW, people are effectively trying to kill it sight unseen by undermining our negotiating position. I think we should let the executive branch finish the negotiations and then start arguing about whether we want to pass the treaty.
Duncan Watson
Obama works best when there is pressure on him from the left. Well I am applying that pressure as best I can. The known parts of this deal sucks and the so-called protections in it for me and mine are toothless. I am not interested in giving Obama a pass. I want to work with facts and knowledge to make a clear decision. Without that, well, I am sorry but the lack of full disclosure is a deal-breaker. period.
gene108
@mai naem mobile:
I think they (and other Congressional Dems) have an instinct for self-preservation, as they still have to seek re-election (except Reid).
They do not need a Republican opponent and the ad nauseum third part groups beating them up over backing a trade deal.
They saw what happened in 2010, when Republicans ran ads attacking Democrats for cutting $500 million from Medicare because they voted for the PPACA.
@Samuel Knight:
I do not remember why Mexico’s economy collapsed. It did not have to do with NAFTA, because it is just coincidental that Mexico’s collapse in 1994 was concurrent with the signing of NAFTA.
Also, you should see the “Reply” button on the lower right-hand side of a comment. It will hyperlink the comment you are replying to and make it easier for people track the various conversations going on in a thread.
different-church-lady
@Elie: Because by definition it’s never too early to jump to a conclusion.
schrodinger's cat
Trade deals are fine as long as there are protections for labor and environment built in.
Arclite
@chopper:
There’s already a draft copy. It’s currently classified, and will remain so for 4 more years. For something that affects the livelihood of 10s of millions of working Americans, that kind of secrecy is unconscionable.
elm
@Elie: Because they’re asking for Fast Track approval for it now and Fast Track makes for essentially guaranteed approval (it eliminates most legislative veto points).
Doug r
@Betty Cracker: try the people’s view or smarty pants
joel hanes
@schrodinger’s cat:
Trade deals are fine as long as there are REALISTIC ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS FOR THE protections for labor and environment built in, AND THE SIGNATORY COUNTRIES ACTUALLY ENFORCE THEM
FTFY. HTH.
different-church-lady
@joel hanes: Kinda what I was thinking.
Elie
@different-church-lady:
Yep — looks that way
@Roger Moore:
I agree… sigh —
jl
@Elie: The one big problem was not asking for enough fiscal stimulus in early 2009. Christina Romer had the best estimates of required stimulus and forecasts of its effects (given the information available at the time) and recommended a fiscal stimulus of well over a trillion dollars, which she had mostly finished calculating as she entered the Council of Economic Advisors. Larry Summers, as Director of the National Economic Council recommended against asking for that much because of political problems getting that through Congress, so the ask was scaled down to around 800 billion.
There is vigorous debate about whether Summers actively sought to hide exactly what Romer’s analysis showed. The Council of Economic Advisers is mostly concerned with analysis and data. National Economic Council is mainly concerned with policy decisions. I think if Summers did hide it, he did not do his job well, since he is an economist not a political tactician.
We know now that by some measures, the initial slide into recession was far worse and more raoid than the initial slide into the Great Depression. That is why people like Krugman, who is very data driven, more than people like Summers and Stiglitz, if you watch his academic talks, was running around with his hair on fire, I think he had a better feel for what they preliminary data coming in would show later after they were revised and finalized.
So, the initial ask for the fiscal stimulus was not large enough. The initial ask that was reduced for political reasons was not enough because the recession was much worse than people first realized. So, if you believe that fiscal stimulus works (which I think it is very clear now that it does) sub par policy produced very sub par recovery. Producing apathetic and discouraged and fearful Democrats and turnout in midterms.
Ruckus
@mai naem mobile:
Also look where the profits for those earthmovers are kept so as to avoid paying US taxes.
I am a free trader. But I’m also a realist. And I know that while things in the US are not always (or often) a bed of roses (well they might be if one forgets to take off the thorns), in many other countries they are/can be much worse, general worker living wise. We supposedly get the benefit of this with lower prices. But mfg is a world thing now, other countries have full access to the machines, information and so on that make a modern mfg society. That is why most all production bicycles in the world are made in Taiwan or China. They have invested in the technology and have the workforce while many in this country did not. They have tried in many cases just to lower costs(wages) or at least keep them the same over the last 30-40 yrs rather than invest in ways to make things better. Yes not all mfg have done this, I know of one who expanded during the recession 3 fold and is quite successful, while around them others were folding up shop.
The issue at hand, the TTP may be just the ticket for reviving our economy and workforce. But with the benefit of hindsight of other trade deals I find that highly unlikely. With the input of mainly large corporations I find it far more unlikely.
Arclite
@different-church-lady:
No, but that’s the issue. They’re classified. Why? If the deal is so great, why hide it?
gene108
@Bobby Thomson:
Free trade, over the last 25 years, has done more to alleviate global poverty than anything else tried.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
Alex
Zandar, god love ya, you’re a company man til the bitter end. You come up with arguments for Obama before he even thinks of them.
Aaron Morrow
@Elie:
While most people would say that the fiscal stimulus was too small, I’d mention the fact that he agreed with Summers that there was nothing monetary stimulus could do. The only thing I’d ever say that is “sad” about Obama was leaving enough openings on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors so that the reserve bank presidents can effectively control monetary policy. The result is Yellen not having the votes to keep from raising interest rates before the employment-population ratio approaches pre-crisis levels.
Poopyman
@Belafon: Nope. Huawei is kicking everyone’s ass in the East, and China is making it a point to replace all foreign IT infrastructure with homegrown. Thanks, Snowden!
different-church-lady
@Poopyman: Well, I’m sure Chinese are going to be much better off with their own government’s version of built-in snooping technology than the NSA’s.
Tone in DC
I am as much of an Obama supporter as anyone. I think he’s the best president we’ve had in a very long time. PUMAs like Hamsher need to FOAD, in my humble opinion.
Having said that, this trade deal makes me leery, to say the least. What little I have heard from Amy Goodman, FAIR and other sources causes me to hope it doesn’t pass. Trade deals that are negotiated with so much opacity ought to make anyone nervous.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/26/headlines#3267
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/20/a_plan_only_banksters_will_love
John Cole +0
Harold Ford was on Morning Joe and is in favor of the deal. That cemented it for me.
jl
@gene108: Thanks for the link. The linked text is quite short, and I encourage readers to read it and decide for themselves whether it says what you assert that it does.
jl
@John Cole +0:
Manchin? What’s he say?
Poopyman
@different-church-lady: The Chinese government certainly agrees!
catclub
@jl:
I agree with this. I also think that: The silver lining is that with this very slow recovery, there is a chance that NO recession occurs before 2016 and the Democrats have a much improved chance of holding the White House.
Mino
Canada has been bitten by that corporate court under NAFTA. The pro TTIP argument is that developed countries would be little effected by lawsuits. Well, not so much if you care to read the record of cases Canada has lost. See if you like the effects.
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2806735/profits_before_whales_to_know_why_ttip_would_be_a_nightmare_look_to_canada.html
FlipYrWhig
@Roger Moore:
To go back to a point I used to make a lot more, there’s a whole bunch of inter-branch checks-and-balances stuff that comes into play when we’re talking about What Obama Should Do or Why Obama Does What He Does. Presidents generally want presidents to have more power, not less. Senators generally want presidents to have less power, not more. I’m not surprised that Democratic senators, who are still senators after all, would balk at the notion that any president–even one from their party–should get increased authority in any area. That’s a reasonable thing to fight over. The debate over “fast track” and the debate over “fast track to do TPP” are really two different things, and senators shouldn’t be playing dumb to whip up nincompoops like Green to stick pictures of Elizabeth Warren on banner ads to harvest email addresses they can use.
catclub
@Tone in DC: I think the best way to defeat it will be to convince the wacky right that it is Agenda 21 or similar left wing horror. Apparently this may be happening.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_04/fasttrack_as_a_leftist_conspir055228.php
Amnestyghazi!11!
magma
@kc: It’s on now…
jl
@catclub: That is certainly possible and I hope for it. There is no biological or iron economic laws that govern how quickly recoveries and expansions age.
There were some ‘fresh green sprouts’ (remember that olde tymey saying?) in labor market in late spring and early summer before midterms and I hoped desperately that they would continue. But real pickup didn’t start until midterms were upon us, and too late.
Fr33d0m
First off I come by my position by seeing how these trade deals seem to come out in the end. Then I see the secrecy, and the fast track, and then I see the POTUS responding to the left like he has here. How exactly am I supposed to trust that?
I get that all trade deals don’t have to suck, and that there may need to be some secrecy. But when the POTUS goes on the tube to grump like this, all I take away is that the man doesn’t have an argument. After all, if he did, wouldn’t he bring Brown and Warren in and address their concerns?
If I have to make up my mind in a vacuum, then you have to deal with my conclusions Mr. President. Oh, and by the way, this is how we are supposed to behave. Its called keeping our standard bearer in line. When we don’t do this we get crappy trade deals and sucky grand bargains….
Still, nobody asked him where to find the facts? Really?
Roberta in MN
Maybe you all should look on the WH.gov website and look up the TPP. Also, “The Peoples View has had 3 articles on this and HE has read it. Jut a thought.
I “Trust” President Barack Obama.
Kay
@Cacti:
That isn;t fair, and either is “death panels” Sherrod Brown has spent a good chunk of his career on trade. To suggest he doesn’t understand the issue is insulting.
This is his job. It is exactly what he’s supposed to be doing.
FlipYrWhig
@jl: Still, no matter what the numbers showed, there’s just no way enough people were going to sign onto something as large as One Trillion Dollars. That was a very palpable psychological barrier. You could tell that no matter the extent of the crisis, the final number for addressing it couldn’t be 10 figures.
Belafon
@Fr33d0m: Once again, I have to ask: How is this different than negotiations with Iran, other than lots of liberals don’t like this particular problem?
Jim C.
@Zander
“Well you certainly are doing that. Quite a few of you are taking the notion that I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt very, very fucking personally, by the way.
I find that interesting.”
I find it largely fictional. Not seeing the “quite a few people” who are taking it “very, very fucking personally”.
A couple of comments might qualify, but largely it’s been pretty civil.
jl
@FlipYrWhig: But, it looks like it should have been 10 figures. The numbers were the numbers. Summers is a good macroeconomist, and good economist in general (as long as he keeps out of his less good financial economics sideline, which hasn’t panned out too well).I don’t see any sign he is a good politician at all. If he did fudge the estimates and forecasts he did Obama a serious disservice.
I don’t want to start another ‘bully pulpit is magic’ war. But if Obama admin had asked for over a trillion, and did not get it, I do not see how it would have hurt to have been able to say “Well, look, the GOP said no, and now look at this mess”. I admit I don’t know how much it would have helped, but I don’t see how it would have hurt.
And given that the recession was worse than people, including most economists, knew at the time, every dollar lost in fiscal stimulus came at a very dear price, both in terms of the welfare of ordinary people, and political outcomes.
I just think Obama, like Bill Clinton, is far too deferential to consensus economic opinion, which has not covered itself with glory, even before the recession and panic.
Kay
@Elie:
They are allowed to push. That’s their job. They think they will get more if they push. How is it a negotiation if the President can go out and make his case and no one else can?
I object to the whole idea that labor and environmental protections are “concessions” actually. Concessions to whom? Why is this being presented as the US and business will offer concessions to workers and environmental concerns?
Why isn’t “the US” labor and environmental groups? They’re “the US” as much as business interests are.
gene108
@Fr33d0m:
All Fast Track does is cause the Senate to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the bill, but they cannot offer Amendments.
It makes sense that international negotiations are done via Fast Track, since having to go back to 40 other countries and tell them they need to redo the agreement because Lindsey Graham “has the vapors” about something in the bill will be a pain in the butt.
Zandar
@John Cole +0:
Well…okay, that’s actually a valid point.
BillinGlendaleCA
@John Cole +0: You’re watching Morning Joe? You really are trying to test out your sobriety.
Elie
@jl:
I agree that the initial stimulus may have been too small, but I don’t think that the recovery was slow just because of that… businesses would not hire and banks would not lend for a very long time. In fact, banks are STILL not lending to small businesses enough to stimulate the economy.
Also, the Democrats are a bunch of assholes who even when they have something to tout, run away — I tell you what, I don’t trust THEM very much even as I may question TTP…
Tone in DC
@catclub:
I think you’re right.
Thing is, these wingers think EVERYTHING that doesn’t emanate from the Tea Party/g00pers is a left wing conspiracy.
As so many have pointed out, we oughta tell these Billo/Rush/Fux News fans that breathing is a liberal conspiracy, and they should cease and desist such activity immediately.
MomSense
@different-church-lady:
thank you.
Belafon
@Jim C.: How big is “quite a few?”
gene108
@jl:
That’s what happens, when you elect Lawyers to office instead of economists or statisticians or mathematicians…
Linnaeus
@Kay:
Thank you, Kay. As always.
Jim C.
@Belafon:
Dunno. Ask Zander. It’s his description. I see only a couple of overly emotional comments myself.
askew
This is too big of a deal to take on trust. I think it is weird to see Obama supporters arguing that this is a slight on him. It’s not. This deal is big enough to cause as much damage to the US as NAFTA did and Obama has a history on trade deals that doesn’t give automatic trust. He said CAFTA and the South Korean trade deal would have labor and environmental standards and be good for our country’s workers. The South Korean trade deal aligns with that but CAFTA most certainly does not. There has been no enforcement of labor violations.
As for saying that Congress has seen the entire bill, they haven’t. They are allowed to go to the US Trade Office themselves and read it but their staffers can’t go independently and read the document and they can’t take any notes or any part of it with them. That isn’t a review. That’s BS. Everyone knows staffers are the policy experts on the Hill and do all the heavy policy lifting.
I am a huge Obamabot but I can’t side with him on this. I have yet to see one great argument for why we even need this trade deal. I think it tarnishes his legacy, divides the party for 2016 and increases the chances of a GOP presidency in 2017 as frustrated Dems sit out the election after the party betrays them again on a trade deal.
Elie
@Kay:
I hear and appreciate your point, Kay. Definitely appreciate your point.
Fair Economist
@gene108:
Post hoc propter hoc fallacy. China grew as fast before it joined the WTO as it did afterwards. In addition the Chinese growth afterwards has been much more bubblish; although that doesn’t prove causation either it’s not a good argument for free trade. The biggest thing for alleviating global poverty was probably Chinese internal reforms, not free trade.
Belafon
@askew:
Um…
Kay
@Linnaeus:
I love how they’re making it sound like we’re maybe going to get something. Who is giving us something, and who said they had it to “give”? We start at “zero” and they start at “100%”?
elm
@gene108: The population of China is responsible for basically all of the gain in the document you linked.
I’ll note here that U.S. does not have a free trade treaty with China, so free trade treaties don’t have anything to do with that (generally low tariffs do, as does most favored status).
And during that span, U.S. median household wages have stagnated and income and wealth share have accrued to the top few percent.
What I see is that U.S. capitalists have exported U.S. jobs and income, pocketed most of the savings, and paid out a pittance to people working in manufacturing in China. I suppose if I worked in the suicide-jumper net industry then I’d be thrilled about that, but I don’t, so I’m not.
ruemara
I got to look at a few of the details, including the claim that it was secret. It seems it has a 3 month review period. When there’s this much disparity in the facts versus what is said, I tend to go with the facts. I haven’t read the deep breakdown from the anti-TPP people that respond to the issue of how a 3 month review is secret or the protections in place the white house talks about are actually not present. The devil is in the details, I’m sure, but I have noticed a trend of hyperbole that would be worthy of a Murdoch newsfeed that runs through the left. Somewhere, the facts are there.
I must admit, I got completely turned away from the anti bandwagon when someone described freedom of religion to discriminate laws as minor spats in the face of the TPP.
Jim C.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t a number of President Obama’s campaign speeches over the years made reference to insisting on “fair trade” over “free trade”?
It might be interesting to dig some of those speeches up and see how he defined the distinctions.
chopper
@Arclite:
The draft copy is classified. Will the copy the senate debates be classified?
askew
@FlipYrWhig:
Yeah, I think it is pretty disingenuous to be quoting Green here. He’s a nobody grifter and hack. There is real opposition to this trade deal from unions, Warren, Sanders, Casey, O’Malley, etc. that are worth highlighting. Using Green is trying to conflate legitimate concerns about the TPA/TPP and the grifter morons who tried to kill the ACA bill. Not even in the same ballpark.
I do find it interesting that Daily Kos front pagers including kos jumped on board for killing ACA and all sorts of other progressive issues but are being much, much quieter on TPA/TPP. Ever since kos endorsed Hillary there has been a real frontpage editorial shift.
I’ve seen elected Democrats calling on Hillary to get off the fence and state her opinion on fast-track now. Curious what she ends up doing. If she goes against the WH on the bill she helped write, she may find the WH less interested in helping her with her various State Dept. scandals.
FlipYrWhig
@jl:
Because some of the people saying no (for > $1T) would have been Democrats.
Linnaeus
@Kay:
Yeah, I don’t like it how labor and environmental stipulations are somehow favors that Our Betters bestow upon the rest of us out their generosity. Those things are, at the very least, an acknowledgement that multiple stakeholders have legitimate interests to be taken seriously.
Tree With Water
Any “benefit of a doubt” I may once have been willing to extend Obama went out the window the day he crossed me on 2008’s FISA vote.
I recall reading that Lyndon Johnson once said not to expect his support upon landing, if he wasn’t in on the take-off. The people who crafted this legislation would have been wise to heeded those wise words. And that’s just for starters on the list of what stinks about this prospective “trade deal”.
EthylEster
Either the negotiations are secret and Elizabeth Warren cannot talk about them because of this OR they aren’t. So why can’t we even discover which position is correct OR have someone explain WTF is reality?!
I don’t see why personal criticism is necessary. Somebody must know the truth of this matter. Sheesh.
jl
@gene108:
” That’s what happens, when you elect Lawyers to office instead of economists or statisticians or mathematicians…”
I sure was not suggesting a random economist would be any better than Obama.
gene108
@Fair Economist:
Then how do you account for India, Africa, etc.?
India nearly went broke in 1991 and that forced an opening of the economy, which has led to more job growth and less poverty.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980
There’s a table at the bottom of the link has a bunch of data on China’s economy. It seems growth has gone up more, since joining the WTO.
elm
@gene108:
It also requires committees to report out the bill and changes the Senate vote from a 2/3 majority (to ratify a treaty) to a simple majority.
@Belafon:
Negotiations with Iran solve an actual problem (viz. FUD & risk around Iran’s nuclear program as well as sanctions that aren’t good for the Iranian people). The TPP may let Disney sue and prosecute trademark and copyright infringers in Vietnam and China and will let U.S. firms import more goods made in Vietnamese sweatshops.
jl
@FlipYrWhig: Would have been Congressional Democrats, who I think would have to change their tune as disappointing job numbers came in, and unexpected severity of the recession became clearer.
askew
@japa21:
There was a legitimate reason for Obama to push for Iran deal and keeping Congress out of it. The Executive branch has always been solely responsible for foreign policy. The Iran sanctions were about to expire and the entire world was onboard for the deal. And the Iran deal made sense. It made a war with Iran less likely and it was polling well with the country.
There is no equal sense of urgency with the TPA/TPP. We don’t need the trade deal. Having it will not lead to a safer world or less likely to have a war. It is incredibly unpopular with the American people and the base of the party and there is a long history of shitty trade deals hurting the working class. There is no equivalent history of peace treaties hurting the working class.
gene108
@jl:
Most of the lawyers I have met and worked with do not like math. They avoid it as much as possible in their academic life.
Economics involves math.
Therefore, when you have a country largely governed by lawyers, like the USA is, the lawyers will defer to consensus economic opinion.
Kay
@Linnaeus:
I’m surprised Obama is going with a personal appeal- “I’m a good person and I’m offended”. That has not been his approach in the past. To me it’s oddly out of character.
different-church-lady
@askew:
So was gay marriage at one time. Just sayin’…
chopper
@Tree With Water:
you win the purity award. your full-size pony is in the mail. expect 6-8 weeks for delivery. the pony will likely be dead.
Mandalay
@EthylEster:
My understanding is that:
– Yes, the negotiations are secret.
– Any member of Congress can privately view the details.
– Elizabeth Warren has seen the details.
– She cannot discuss the details publicly.
FlipYrWhig
@jl: I think you underestimate the degree to which the most conservative Democrats in the Senate had cold feet about the whole thing too. But that might as well stay a discussion for another time, I think.
Elie
@Kay:
So Kay, what do you think his problem is? Do you think he was just bowled over by the corporate or other interests and just didn’t give a damn about environmental, OSHA or other considerations? Where do you think he is coming from that makes him prioritize this in the face of such strong opposition from his own party?
Linnaeus
@Kay:
Yes, it is, and I think it’s the wrong tack for him to take. Something like, “I respect my friends in Congress who have concerns that I take seriously and I’m committed to addressing them,” would be much better. If he’s already been doing that, he should keep doing that.
FlipYrWhig
@Kay: I think exasperation at critics whom he thinks ought to know better is very much _in_ character for Obama.
dmbeaster
Any deal intentionally kept secret is a bad deal. There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about these kind of deals based on history to date. Keeping it secret means on one should trust it. I could care less that it is Obama pushing for this. Make it public or else trash it.
BobS
@Jim C.: Yeah, I wondered about that too. I’m not going to re-read the entire thread, but I don’t remember anybody taking anything more “very, very fucking personally” than any other playpen/comment thread — he must have a low bar for what he finds “interesting”.
FlipYrWhig
@Elie: I think he thinks it’s a good deal and that opposition is based on nervousness that previous deals (that he had nothing to do with) didn’t work out well–rather than anything about the current deal. Is he right? I have no idea. But that’s how the tone sounds, and I think he’s been there emotionally several times in his presidency.
catclub
@jl:
If $1Tr was the limit, they should have had a part 2 ready to go as soon as they could show that part 1 was not enough.
askew
@Roger Moore:
Fast track does a lot more than that. It lowers the threshold for passing from 2/3rds of the Senate to a majority. That alone guarantees that the bill passes no matter how shitty it is because the GOP backs the bill. It also prohibits adding any amendments to strengthen environmental or labor standards. So this Senate vote is basically a vote to pass TPP without reading it and for Obama to say otherwise just isn’t true.
askew
@schrodinger’s cat:
The problem isn’t the protections for environment/labor. The problem is the lack of enforcement mechanisms for when those protections are violated.
From the Wikileaks on TPP, this bill would destroy our environmental protections in place and allow foreign companies to pollute.
Mike J
@gene108:
And if you elect an economist, you’ll almost certainly have someone who believes in the consensus economic opinion.
Kay
@Jim C.:
It was discussed in the 2008 primary and again in the general. It was the big Obama/Clinton fight in Ohio in the primary. That probably won’t help. It just re-opens NAFTA rage.
Part of this in Ohio has to do with a future Senate race. They think they can beat Portman with Strickland and trade is a really hot issue in Ohio. Portman knows it because he’s ducking it.
I think you’ll see Democrats looking past the end of Obama’s term, which is sensible and inevitable.
catclub
@elm:
I was wondering about that.
Kay
@FlipYrWhig:
I disagee with him on Sherrod Brown. I think Sherrod Brown knows a lot about trade.
elm
@askew:
This bears repeating (over & over & over). By reducing passage to a simple majority (which is what Obama has asked for here), TPP is guaranteed to pass if Fast Track passes. (Unless you want to count on 5 Republican Senators voting against it and 0 Democrats supporting it).
Hill Dweller
@catclub: They barely got the first stimulus through, because Republicans filibustered, and Dems didn’t have 60 votes. Snowe, Collins, Nelson, Lincoln, etc. arbitrarily reduced the size of the first stimulus in conference. There was no way in hell they were going to vote for a second stimulus. Keep in mind, the Republicans alternative to the stimulus was DeMint’s 15 year spending freeze. They cynically refused to vote for the stimulus, because they knew it wouldn’t immediately turn the economy around, and could hang it around the Dems’ necks in the midterms.
jl
@elm: thanks for info. Then I am in no fast track camp. I’m sure DiFii will pay a lot attention to one more letter from me, though :(.
jacel
There’s a difference between trust and blind trust.
What’s in motion in Congress now is approving a fast-track process for TPP — not TPP itself.
I heard Warren recently on Rachel Maddow’s show talking about TPP and fast tracking,
which Warren called “greasing the skids” repeatedly. Warren said that right now anyone
in Congress has been able to see the TPP drafts, but not to share or talk about any
of those details. What she has seen in the drafts are items that will not face sufficient debate
if fast tracking is put into place before the treaty is allowed to be discussed publicly.
Does anyone know whether equivalents to fast tracking are being put in place by
other nations involved with the treaty? It sounds like the treaty process could
work through without needing fast tracking at this point.
askew
I’d like to point out that among those who support TPA/TPP are Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz. If they are supporting an Obama initiative, it was to be really, really bad.
catclub
@Hill Dweller: I agree with that analysis. My point was not necessarily to pass a second one, but to push constantly for another one when they can show it was needed. Instead, the stimulus was praised as THE solution.
No more discussion needed.
I would also like a pony.
JaneE
Even if this were the best of all possible trade deals, free trade is one of those things that, in theory, will make everything better for everyone, but in practice, it is never better in the lifetime of any actual human being. Obama is far better than the GOP candidates he defeated, but he is not a progressive. Today’s Democratic party is a little to the right of what used to be moderate Republicanism, in other words, largely captured by corporate interests to the exclusion of the interests of human beings.
Fair Economist
@gene108:
Um – your cite doesn’t even *mention* India. India is definitely a mostly domestically driven economy. The big drivers in their growth were reduced corruption, increased savings, and most especially lowering restrictions on mechanization. Lately they’ve had a boost from trade and services export (e.g. trade centers) but that’s been fairly recent and wasn’t responsible for most of the improvement in poverty.
raven
@JaneE: Well, it’s best to drive on with that in mind then isn’t it?
OmerosPeanut
This blog post seems to treat discussion of TPP as if it has appeared out of a vacuum, where we have zero information whatsoever about what is contained in the proposal. If this were the case then trusting Obama’s instincts would have more justification. As it stands, there have already been several weeks’ worth of reporting on all the shitty, in no way possibly any good for anyone but the CEOs and owners of major corporations aspects of the TPP.
Under what lived universe of experience does this justify sticking to “trust his instincts”?
Fair Economist
@elm:
This seems odd. I know it’s been done before, but how can Congress vote to let a treaty be approved by majority vote in the Senate? The 2/3 requirement is in the Constitution.
trollhattan
@BillinGlendaleCA:
Was probably stuck at Jiffy Lube. Speaking of, this is the best unintentional humor in a contest name I’ve seen in a good while: “Jiffy Lube Soccer Mom Sweepstakes.”
MomSense
@Kay:
I have no doubt that Sherrod Brown understands trade. I appreciate that he is keeping up the pressure on the deal to make sure that it ends up being as favorable as possible to his constituents. He is also a politician and plays politics. You can’t be a Dem Senator from Ohio and not talk very tough on trade deals–for political reasons.
CONGRATULATIONS!
I’m getting a little tired of Dem presidents fucking over labor just as badly as their Republican counterparts.
Obama is playing with fire here. If both parties are going to take turns raping labor in an alley, I can simply take my vote elsewhere and damn the consequences.
FlipYrWhig
@JaneE:
Well, while we’re remembering days of Democratic yore, let’s just remember that yesterday’s Democratic party (and I don’t mean a hundred years ago, I mean like 30) included a bunch of Southern racist populists, too.
Baud
@Fair Economist:
The Senate can either ratify a treaty through 2/3 vote, or Congress can pass legislation implementing the agreement, which like all legislation requires a majority vote by the House and Senate. The reason Fast Track is needed is to avoid the normal procedural hurdles (filibuster, amendments) that tie up normal legislation.
Baud
@CONGRATULATIONS!:
Hmmm.
Tree With Water
@chopper: So, you were/are cool with that 2008 FISA vote? You must love Dick Cheney. And I did vote, by the way, just not for Obama. How that qualifies me as a “purist.. well, that I just don’t get. And after its role in the Bush-Cheney War, the democratic party is lucky it’s still in business.
FlipYrWhig
@Tree With Water: We need MORE quixotic parties bound to lose as meta-statements about the rottenness of the process!
chopper
@Tree With Water:
man you are good. you’re like Sherlock fucking Holmes.
Kay
@MomSense:
Right, but that isn’t what the President said. The President said they “don’t know what they’re talking about” I woukd submit that Sherrod Brown does know what he’s talking about.
Why doesn’t he offer them something? He could push thru the (promised) new overtime rules and he can do it without Congress. It’s been delayed for something like 3 years. Overtime would be a nice thing for Sherrod Brown to take back to Ohio and Strickland could run on it. Why should they help him with his trade deal, a deal that will they will have to live with after he’s gone, without a large boost for working people? This whole “level the playing field” discussion assumes that US workers are on solid ground. They’re not. They’re sinking. I tink these flare-ups we see over and over are because there is economic anxiety. That is a real thing. It has to be addressed.
BobS
@CONGRATULATIONS!: Democratic presidents will never fuck over labor as badly as Republicans, but they are worse in one respect — they pretend to be our friends before fucking us over nearly as bad as a Republican would.
Elie
@Baud:
But why is that? We need a populace to support labor! If we have that, it gets easier to have better legislation and candidates and office holders that line up with left progressive values. Without that support, there is no way a leader will try to implement left/progressive agendas. Its not one person magically elected to drive our leftist dream by him or herself…
FlipYrWhig
@BobS: Also, fuckin’ spotted owls, amirite?
FlipYrWhig
@Elie: Most of the problems left-liberal people have with American politics derive from the plain fact that there aren’t that many left-liberals in America. Making more is a big project, and it’s been being tried and pretty much failing since about 1961.
Baud
@Elie:
Yeah, I wish labor had a stronger voice because we are so out of balance, but I don’t see it happening any time soon.
Elie
I have had many a frustrating conversations with a couple of progressive friends who HATE unions and hate immigration policies that have a path to citizenship. I sputter at them and rage about how they can hold those views and be left/progressives. They don’t make excuses for themselves either…
elm
Zandar, do you agree or disagree with the contention that Fast Track approval means guaranteed passage of whatever comes out of TPP negotiations?
If you disagree and think it’s not guaranteed, which 5 Republican Senators do you think could be swayed to vote against the resultant text?
Bobby Thomson
@Kay: on the bright side, he’s had better message control than Rahm and Murphy and hasn’t accused any of his supporters opposing him on this of being on drugs. Yet.
BobS
@FlipYrWhig: Sure, whatever.
srv
So many eyes being opened on this deal.
Obama is just as incurious as Bush was. He was going to sign ACA whatever it said. As he will with TPP.
Look at Clinton. Two decades on and he’s still cashing in from NAFTA/etc. Obama knows he’s behind the monetization curve.
Elie
@Baud:
Many forces played a role in that but its hard to do progressivism without the demand from the people. Right now, after an ugly recession where employers had and still have a lot of power, it is hard to talk to them about empowering themselves. They are paying bills, putting kids through school and feel compelled to accept less than ideal working conditions to keep their jobs. The employers have helped keep this dynamic in place by promoting “productivity” — by which I mean doing the same work with less people. This assures that people don’t feel free to seek other work and that whatever they do they can get away with.
Bobby Thomson
@Elie: do they self identify? Why?
Baud
@Elie:
The people of the Great Depression managed to be strong. Why are people today different?
Mike J
@Elie:
I’ve also had many conversations with union members who HATE liberals because they’re always doing giveaways to unworthy minorities.
joel hanes
taking the notion that I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt very, very fucking personally,
I did no such thing.
What I took personally was your implication that my opposition to TPP was born of “trust issues” rather than well-founded concerns about the substance of the treaty. I’ve been deeply involved in copyright issues for over twenty years, and the leaked copyright provisions of the TPP stink. (Obama, despite his many many virtues, has never been good on copyright or patent issues. In these areas, he acts as if corporations are the only stakeholders.)
Kay
My middle son recently started receiving overtime (because he is working more) and he is very pleased with this thing he didn’t know about :)
I see a lot of people in the practice where overtime is a huge part of their income, because they’re not in this bullshit “manager” definition that was allowed to be created:
So this would be a good offer, a “trade”, even :)
kc
@different-church-lady:
You first. Post your CV. Then I’ll decide whether I should listen to a single thing you say.
BobS
@srv: I don’t agree. Bush has the excuse of being an idiot who made decisions based on his (faulty) instincts. The clearly smarter Obama makes ‘reasoned’ decisions based on his strongly held beliefs that neoliberal economics work.
Elie
@Baud:
I DON’T KNOW!!!! Drives me crazy.
trollhattan
@srv:
Uh, wut? Some claim there, Skippy.
Tripod
Hammer and sickle labor is getting annihilated by mechanization, and all Warren and Co. are offering up is the leftist version of “US out of UN”. The big Ford plant at River Rouge once employed 100,000, now it’s 6000. Trade deals, tariffs, whatever, those jobs are gone and never coming back. Until “The Left”, Democrats, and organized labor deal with that reality, it’s just fap, fap, fap.
Elie
@Mike J:
I hear that… sigh… Its as though we have lost the ability to identify any sense of common “we are all in this together” and that by banding together we can truly help all of us get stronger. Something happened to us in the 80’s — Reagan Democrats? I literally pull my hair out at our Whatcom Democrats meetings try to make sense of how we “sell” good policy to people who should be hungry for it!
Elie
@Baud:
Of course, those were the days before the 24 news cycle and email. Information came to us much slower from the outside and therefore our proximate communities meant so much more… we could identify the we as our neighbors. Now, our neighbors, such as you guys are to me, are literally from all over the world, but I can’t see you. For me, its not a problem but maybe for others, the remoteness just makes it harder to see the we anymore? We were also much less rich. Closets were small (as observed now in anyone remodeling a 1930’s house). We had less shit and had to make do and stay local. Our entertainment was about each other – games played together and enjoyed in groups. Now we have the individualist’s dream – the net and games which do less to cement us together? I just have questions. And vague sadness.
Cain
@gene108:
Didn’t it pretty much ruin Mexico’s farming? I mean that’s why there are so many desperate people trying to cross the border even at the risk of their own lives.
Arthur
“But after six years of being in the White House and actually getting us out of the black hole the Republicans put us in, I’m kind of willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt.”
This is similar to what I said with the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
EthylEster
@Mandalay:
So then either the pres is being disingenuous when he says: There’s “nothing secret” about the treaty, he said.
Or there is some confusion about what “secret negotiations” means.
Now we’re back in “depends on the meaning of ‘is'” territory.
But I agree with whoever wrote upthread that this needs to be sorted out in private…Pres and his prog detractors should talk.
Elie
@Tripod:
I hear that. I don’t think anyone knows what to do in response. The driver to mechanization of course, is making more widgets that can be sold in volume to make a very small number of people rich.
Elie
@Cain:
Actually, I have no comment about the impact of NAFTA on Mexico, but I think that the numbers of people crossing the border have diminished in recent years…
Cain
@Poopyman:
Yeah, but it is a win for free software. As a director of a free software project non-profit, we have been getting a lot of interest in GNOME. Maybe that doesn’t mean much at least from a labor perspective, but I’ve been personally pleased because as a social movement, I’d like to spread that message throughout Asia.
Procopius
Sometning that I find very strange, on the conference call by Perez, where Obama is supposed to have showed up unexpectedly, it is claimed that Obama said, “There is nothing secret about the treaty.” I have seen other stories where, on the contrary, congress-critters who attended a briefing on the treaty were not allowed to bring staff members or take notes, and were told that if they disclosed what they heard they “could be charged with a crime.” Now I consider these stories contradictory. Why have I not seen anybody asking what the fk Obama was talking about? This is the only place where I have seen that quote, by the way. Or have the other stories about how secret the treaty is, and we can only see unauthorized leaks through WikiLeaks all lies? I’ve become so skeptical of the media that I no longer know which version to believe.
Baud
@Elie:
It has been disappointing, especially coming after the way we banded together to deal with W.
Kay
@Tripod:
Yeah, well, that’s not actually true either. One of the things they want (and wil get) is labor protections for service workers.
Baud
@Procopius:
It still secret because it’s still being negotiated. Once it’s complete, it will be made public.
lol
@jl:
There was an interview, when he retired, with David Obey and he said that the (not yet actually in office) Obama administration started at $1.4 trillion for the stimulus. He then walked through all the different stages of political negotiation that whittled it down to the eventual $900 billion that the Maine twins refused to go over.
How is Obama going bully pulpit it up by saying “well, Republicans refused to spend more so it’s on them” when he was getting hammered in the press for spending *too much* on it?
Yeah, the stimulus needed to be larger. No one in the Obama administration would say otherwise.
Now does anyone want to explain where the votes for a larger or second stimulus would’ve come from? I mean, for fuck’s sake, have progressives already forgotten the composition of the Senate at the time? Spoiler alert: it wasn’t 60 Democrats much less 60 Elizabeth Warrens.
lol
@Cain:
I thought it was the drug cartels and the corrupt government that they were escaping?
elm
@Baud:
Then once it’s complete and public, we can talk about Fast Track approval.
Baud
@elm:
Fine with me, but I’m not in Congress.
Keith G
@Baud: @Baud:
Whoa
I doubt people are “different”, but the society sure the hell is. First off there are more facture points and less structural pressure in favor of coherence/solidarity. Also their “strength” as you call it might have been born out of them plainly having fewer options and less to lose.
If Mr. Firestone (in one hypothetical example) wanted to increase his fortune making tires, they had to be made here in the US in the extra large capital intense factories that he had already built using a labor supply that was somewhat geographically static. Once the government decided that he could no longer legally shoot union instigators, there was increased incentives for him to deal with the unionized workers. Moving operations over seas or even to a new state just was not feasible. An energized and concentrated local workforce had some leverage.
Another factor favoring solidarity, unfortunately, was that at that time the “class divide” and race were not as thoroughly intertwined as it is has been recently.
I could list half a dozen others, but you must see the point.
elm
@Baud: The current issue is that Obama wants Congress to pass Fast Track approval now, knowing that if he gets that, then these treaties will become law (because it’ll only require a simple majority).
That’s the heart of the issue. He’s asked us to support him on assuring passage of this treaty, when the past history of such treaties hasn’t been so great and there’s no reason to believe this one will contain any enforceable measures on labor rights or the environment.
On the other hand, you can be damn sure it does contain enforceable measures on trademarks and copyright and the rights of big business to move jobs overseas.
Kay
@Tripod:
It just isn’t misty-eyed yearning for days of yore at the auto plant. People get murdered for union organizing in some of these places, and the push from (a few) members of Congress makes a difference.
They’ve succeeeded in changing the whole structure of these agreements, post-NAFTA. They’ve made worker protections integral to the treaty, where they were a “side agreement” in the past, which made them unenforceable.
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR%20DOL%20Trade%20-%20Labor%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf
Baud
@elm:
I obviously don’t know what will be in treaty. Obama clearly wants this to pass — as would I if I were the president whose administration negotiated it.
jl
@lol: I don’t want to argue on this too much since enough fighting over TPP, so will give you my opinions and leave it at that. Disagree all you want.
I think Obama
1. was way to deferential to press opinion, and too careful about conservative griping about the stimulus, like that dumb transparency website
2. should have made more fuss about the whittling on the first package and more fuss about not getting a second stimulus passed.
And, I am not one of the commenters who ever thought is was a good idea to see how the first one went and then ask for more if needed.
But, then I am one of the commenters who has thought more FDR and Truman style confrontation was needed from the get go. And clearly that was not Obama’s approach. But, going along with one theme of this thread, I disagree with Obama on some things. But, I admit that Obama probably beat HRC because of his post-partisan stuff, and what I wanted was probably not in the cards.
jl
@Baud: Obama inherited TPP negotiations from Bush II, they started in 2004 or 2005. Obama could have changed negotiating strategy, but looks like from what we know now, he did not.
BobS
@Baud: Not entirely secret — Chevron knows what’s in it, as does Comcast, PHRMA, Halliburton, MPAA, etc. They’re who you’re giving the “benefit of the doubt” to when you give it to Obama.
Baud
@jl:
I’m not sure what that means, but we’ll find out soon enough what was negotiated.
Procopius
.@Turgidson:
No, you seem to misunderstand what’s in the Fast Track bill. We won’t have 90 days to debate the treaty, the vote yes or no to the whole treaty, with no amendment, must take place within 90 days of the Trade Representative presenting it to the Senate. I’m still baffled by Obama’s assertion that the draft is not secret. Is he misinformed? What’s going on there? Why hasn’t that misunderstanding been more widely discussed? Surely that’s at least as important as, “If you like your health plan you can keep it.” Didn’t anybody have an opportunity to question that on the conference call (sorry, I’ve never been on a conference call and don’t know how they work)?
Linnaeus
@Tripod:
A lot of those jobs aren’t coming back, to be sure. But it’s not just workers in manufacturing that need protections.
And frankly, I can understand the frustration of being told, more or less, “suck it up, losers” when your jobs are gone.
Baud
@BobS:
I didn’t opine one way or another on the TPP. But keep listening to the voices in your head.
EthylEster
@Kay:
Could you explain labor protections for service workers?
I haven’t a clue. And is this in the TPP? Are the service workers US citizens? I’m confused.
Keith G
@Baud:
And then what?
Will it move quickly into Congress for a quick up or down vote, with some of the same corporate powers, who have been hanging around during it’s construction, ready to pressure money-hungry politicians on the eve of an election year to step up an do them yet another solid.
I bet this is not a Gordian Knot. I think Obama can bring more folks onboard, but he needs to reach out a bit. If he hasn’t done so already, I suggest he share a meal with Sen. Warren and see it they can reason together. It would be a good thing for the party if those two tried.
Edited to fix quote.
EthylEster
@Baud:
And then the repubs will pass it with a majority of votes…and w/o any amendments.
So exactly how does making it public affect anything at that point?
Keith G got there a minute before me!
Kay
@BobS:
That is true, and it’s hard to swallow. Also, on a personal note, I watched some of the Senate hearing and the US Trade Representative is just, I don’t know, couldn’t they find someone who talks less like a banker?
We’re back to the “on your side” problem. I don’t know why they all seem to feel like they have to sound like “nuetrals” or “agnostics”. They’re not supposed to be “nuetral”. No one wants that in an advocate.
jl
@Baud: I tried to say that when Obama got into office, he could have taken a look at how Bush II had been negotiating it, and if he had misgivings, could have taken a different direction. But all the information we have so far indicates that he continued on with Bush II approach. Maybe we will see indications otherwise when we see the final product.
danielx
@elm:
Or approval at all, for that matter. Hey, nothing against Obama in particular – but I’ve earned my cynicism. When he or any other pol says, in effect, “hey, trust me, it’s a good deal – but I can’t tell you what’s in it”, my first reaction is to take a tighter grip on my wallet. Second reaction is to say “um, no, fuck you and your good deal”. Good deal for who? I can’t think of one of these goddamned trade deals that’s been a good deal for American workers, although they’ve been great for American corporations.
Fuck a bunch of “good deals”, and the various horses they rode in on too.
BobS
@Baud: Sorry, it was the other Baud who wrote “It still secret because it’s still being negotiated” — I always forget he’s the one who sounds like a caveman, and you’re the asshole.
Baud
@Keith G:
I believe it’s a minimum of 90 days before a vote.
@EthylEster:
I’m not sure what your asking. That will be the case regardless of when it is made public.
elm
@Baud:
A simple majority vote, no filibuster, no death by committee, no amendments — which means guaranteed passage.
If it was made public now it would be subject to committee review and a potential filibuster. Timing of making it public matters a ton.
Baud
@BobS:
You are unhinged.
@jl:
Maybe. I don’t know the history all that well.
Baud
@elm:
Ok.
Kay
Labor homicides. Now there’s a phrase we probably don’t want to get familiar with, huh? That’s when the state/business interests murder 110 organizers since 2011.
So, you know, THAT’S the bottom they’re worried about racing to.
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/USTR%20DOL%20Trade%20-%20Labor%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf
Keith G
@Baud: So less time (almost 1/2) than it took to confirm Lynch.
That aside, Corporate America seems to really like what their influence has helped to create – and the Obama team to negotiate, so whatever is fast tracked will be passed.
Like I said, Obama needs to try to personally ease Warren’s worries. She is part of the future of this party. He, well, he is less so. I bet he can get her onboard, so I hope he tries.
ms_canadada
@gene108: This Canadian’s gut feeling is it’s not going to be good for my community – Hamilton, Ontario – formerly known as the ‘Steel City’, but best known now as the home of the first Tim Hortons (it’s still here on Ottawa Street, and the Dutchie is still my favourite doughnut).
We suffered hug job losses and factory closings in the Niagara Peninsula in general, following NAFTA.
But until I see what the ‘agreement’ entails, I really can’t give an informed response.
danielx
Cynic that I am, I suspect TPP will go sailing through no matter what progressives or for that matter the American public say or think. Yet another example of the difference between what polls say the electorate wants and what actually happens in regard to public policy in whatever arena, whether it be foreign policy, military spending, economic policy or what have you.
It would be nice to live in an actual democracy; I can vaguely remember what that’s like.
BobS
@Baud: You would be the asshole Baud, right?
Linnaeus
@danielx:
The fast-track vote will be the real vote on this. If that passes, I don’t see why the TPP itself won’t.
Baud
@BobS:
That’s what my mom calls me. But you’re not my mom, so you can call me Baud or Sir.
the Conster
@BobS:
derp
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: Caveman?
BobS
@Baud: A simple yes would have taken less effort. On the other hand, expecting an asshole to resist being an asshole would be like expecting my cat to ignore mice.
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
If so, it was subconscious.
singfoom
I’ll just leave this here: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/tpp
I don’t think it’s trust issues as I don’t trust any politicians at all, but as many others have said, tariffs are low already. The thing I object to the most I understand as Trade Courts as explained in this post:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/gaius-publius-tobacco-deaths-tpp-trade-courts.html
IF (and yes, as it’s in secret it MIGHT be untrue, I can’t “walk” over there and read it) US laws regarding environmental and other laws were to be able to be challenged in Trade Courts for compensation (for something like putting gross images on cigarettes for example), I think that’s a loss for our rule of law and our citizens and a win for multinational corporations.
Baud
@BobS:
Assholes are stubborn that way.
BobS
@Baud: Yeah, but so are cavemen, so you can understand the confusion.
Baud
@BobS:
You got me there.
Cain
@lol:
I think that happened later. I mean, once you have the collapse then some of those folks would have joined a gang to survive. After all, that is going to be good money, right?
NobodySpecial
‘Secure Room’ was the last straw for me. Anyone else remember the last time Congress had to go to a ‘Secure Room’ to look at something? That turned out kinda shitty.
AxelFoley
I love No Fucks to Give Obama.
Suck it, Emo Lefties.
me
@japa21:
Republicans can’t get behind the Kenyan commie muslim athiest America hater fast enough on TPP. That says it all for me
Howard Beale IV
@singfoom: And that’s exactly what the ISDS in the TPP and TTIP is all about-an extrajudicial party that trumps state sovereignty as pointed out so well on that Last Week Tonight segment on Tobacco.
Hell, even Cato agreed with Senator Warren’s analysis on just how bad the ISDS is. If Cato and Senator Warren are on the same side, it’s bad.
Don’t think it can happen? Ask Angela Merkel how much she had to pay (and will have to pay) Vattenfall when she announced that Germany was going to shut down their nuclear power plants.
Howard Beale IV
People don’t think the downside of the ISDS won’t happen here if TTP and TTIP get passed? Ask Angela Merkel how much Germany has already forked out and probably will have to fork out to Vattenfall when she announced she was shutting down Germany’s nuclear power plants-Vattenfall is suing Germany for-you guessed it-LOST PROFITS.
Marc McKenzie
Well, to those who are pissed at Obama–what are you going to do, not vote for him in the next election? Call him the N-word under your breath (no, not expecting that, but after all these years of the shit being thrown at him from all sides, I’m done giving a fuck)? Or not vote for Hillary to “send a message”–message being “I don’t give a crap about the environment, a woman’s right to choose, voting rights for minorities, the environment, the Supreme Court, etc.”?
Look, I have my concerns about this too–but I find it odd that we’re getting pissed off over three-year old docus that Wikileaks just dumped out there. And of course, Obama has spent the last six years cleaning up Bush’s shit. Why would he fuck things up now? Or have you noticed that what he’s done as President has helped us overall?
Anyway, I’m done. Goodnight.
doug r
Smartypants schools you once again: http://immasmartypants.blogspot.ca/2015/04/tpp-is-not-nafta.html
BobS
@me:Right. Over there is Elizabeth Warren, Public Citizen, EFF, Friends of the Earth, Yves Smith, Greenpeace, AFL-CIO, Dean Baker, Bernie Sanders, Food&Water Watch, Free Press, Sherrod Brown, & Noam Chomsky.
And lining up behind Obama we find Smartypants (whoever the fuck that is), Comcast, Mitt Romney, the US Chamber of Commerce, Alan Greenspan, Mitch McConnell, PHRMA, John McCain, Chevron, Megan McArdle, and quite possibly the dumbest motherfucker on the internets, Axel Foley.
This is hard to figure out.
mclaren
With this post, Zandar announces his membership in the Tea Party. That’s fine — so leave. Get out. The Democratic party has no place for sociopaths like you, Zandar.
It’s impossible to “give Obama the benefit of the doubt” because there is no doubt — the portions of the TPP that have been leaked represent a total corporate power grab, allowing corporations the power to override laws passed by government via a secretive process and raise prices on things like drugs and software not just by 20 percent or 30 percent, but by 2000 percent or 10,000 percent.
Zandar, you need to leave the Democratic party stat and proclaim your membership in the Koch-sucking clique of toadies who recently eliminated the estate tax for billionaires.
Either leave the Democratic party, or douse yourself in kerosene and light a match. I’m not sure which is preferable, considering how far you’ve degenerated. But that’s okay — choose one or the other, we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Betty Cracker
Oh, Nevermind!
TG Chicago
Who the fuck trusts a politician?
No politician deserves trust. They should be held accountable for everything. They should be questioned on everything. They should be made to explain everything.
Why would you “trust” them? What’s the benefit?
nfh
This debate is depressing. Invest now in ‘Who could have known’ futures. And circa-2006 style-conversions (‘Well, I voted to re-elect Dubya in 2004, but…now…’).
History will judge.
low-tech cyclist
@japa21:
Oh, come on. At the very minimum, the Administration had to have put some sort of initial proposal on the table as a starting point for the negotiations.
It’s not like our trade reps just showed up at the first meeting and said, “hey, y’all, what do you think should be in this deal?”
So the Obama Administration can and should share this initial ask with the American people. It doesn’t give away any of the give-and-take of the negotiations for the American people to find out what our Administration said we wanted in the first place.
Also, I damn sure would like to know who has had input into the negotiations, besides the trade reps of the other countries. I think that’s our business as well.
Berto
@chopper: ,
I wanted a leader who wouldn’t screw me over for political expedience, and all I got was f’n pony.
different-church-lady
@kc: A bit late in my reply, but in a roundabout way you’ve proven my point: nobody should listen to damn thing either one of us say.
bullsmith
Sure hand over national sovereignty to multinational corporations. What could possibly go wrong.