This Huffington Post piece also seems like a fair summary of the fast-track kerfuffle…
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has been the public face of the Democratic Party’s feud with President Barack Obama over his trade agenda. But behind the scenes, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) quietly united his party behind a strategy that resulted in a major defeat Tuesday for the president.
Brown’s weeks of work came to fruition when Democrats voted to block legislation that would have given Obama so-called fast-track trade authority. Fast-track authority would strip Congress of the ability to amend trade deals negotiated by the president and is essential for the passage of Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal the administration is negotiating with 11 Pacific nations…
To get Senate leadership on board, Brown immediately reached out to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) following the Finance Committee’s markup of those bills, arguing they should be voted on as a package. “Hatch was already making noises that he would pull out TAA and pull out customs,” Brown told reporters after Tuesday’s vote, referring to individual provisions. Reid took it from there, threatening, in an interview with The Huffington Post on May 4, that Democrats would block moving to a fast-track bill unless all four measures were considered together…
While the Obama administration has persistently argued that TPP will include robust labor protections, most Democrats remain skeptical that those standards will be enforced. The administration has a poor record of enforcing labor rules in existing trade deals, but the Brown-Wyden amendment wouldn’t depend on trade staffers sorting out foreign worker abuses before international panels. It would direct domestic law enforcement to send back any products made with forced labor. While that would almost certainly be permitted under TPP, it would reduce the value of the deal for Vietnam and Malaysia.
The other amendment, penned by Brown and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), would combat currency manipulation by foreign governments, a top priority for Democrats. By devaluing their currency, governments can make their own goods cheaper overseas without lowering standards of living domestically. While China is the most notorious currency manipulator, Japan and other countries involved in the TPP talks have been almost as aggressive…
Baud
This has always been my view, but the conventional wisdom has been that the TPP would pass easily under fast track.
Who knows?
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud:
Just another step toward the United Federation of Planets.
Baud
@Omnes Omnibus:
And sex with green-skinned aliens…
Cacti
@Baud:
If the baggers are against anything, it’s going to be for some batshit crazy reason.
The Other Bob
If only Sherrod Brown would run for President…sigh.
Baud
@Cacti:
Obviously. But their votes count just the same.
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: Well, duh.
Corner Stone
Apparently, Sen Brown secretly hates Obama and his wife is a PUMA bitch ass fuck.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
It’s the only logical explanation.
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: It is known.
Tree With Water
Lest We Forget: Ohio has its fair share of electoral college votes. Who can forget that the Buckeye state made Karl Rove melt down and freak out on-air election night 2012? Brown’s inclusion on the 2016 ticket would probably make him puke.
magurakurin
It seems to me that this is just government working the way it should. One politician, the president, has his idea of what should be done, and others in the Senate have another. The system allows the ones in the Senate to override the one in the Whitehouse if there numbers are great enough. I don’t see it as a fight, or a shot across the bow, or a calling out, or an escalation or any other dumb ass catch phrase that the media tosses around.
lamh36
Open Thread…something for my fellow comic book geeks!
Marvel Courting Ava DuVernay to Direct Diverse Superhero Movie (Exclusive)
So apparently the courting seems to be centered around directing Black Panther or Ms Marvel! Marvel has expressed the desire to hire an African American director to direct Black Panther and also hire a female director for Ms Marvel.
If hired for either, DuVernay would be the first AA director of a Marvel film and also the firm female director.
My fingers are crossed for Black Panther! When Marvel announced that a Black Panther movie was being made, I admit that DuVernay was at the top of my list for directors!
Kay
@Corner Stone:
Yes, the Obama’s hate Connie Schultz, who worked for the Cleveland paper for 20 years and did this absolutely glowing exclusive interview with Michelle Obama in 2008:
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/08/connie_for_sunday.html
Baud
@magurakurin:
Yeah, the U.S. has been having political fights over trade since forever. It’s an important debate, but it’s the type of things governments are supposed to decide.
gf120581
The whole TPP fight is making for some very strange political bedfellows. It’s about the only issue where you’d see Liz Warren and the whackadoodles in the House on the same side. Or vice versa, Obama and the Turtle.
Linnaeus
Looks like a big part of the fight is actually between Senate Democrats and Republicans:
Though I again see that even this article uses “pro-trade” as if anyone who is against the TPP must be “anti-trade”, whatever that means.
Hal
@lamh36: I’m plotzing. That would be awesome.
Omnes Omnibus
@Kay: And yet this happened.
John Cole +0
I love Brown, but this “Obama was sexist to Warren” is total fucking bullshit.
Corner Stone
@Kay:
Jesus, that was a brutal fucking interview. No wonder Sen Brown has been working his own petty angles to get back at the Obamas.
Just fucking disgraceful on the part of Sen Brown and his wife.
Corner Stone
@John Cole +0: As usual, Cole. You’re an idiot.
Baud
@John Cole +0:
Yeah, especially the “perhaps?” at the end of Brown’s quote. One should not call the president sexist in a tentative manner.
Linnaeus
@John Cole +0:
I have a ton of respect for Brown, but he shouldn’t have gone there.
Belafon
@magurakurin: Agree. It’s also why, while I didn’t agree with Warren’s take that Obama must show the agreement while the talks were ongoing (otherwise I think I’d have to agree to opening Iranian negotiations unless I was doing this for political reasons), I didn’t think it was destroying the Republic.
lamh36
@Corner Stone: look. did Brown say it or not. Yes he did allude that Obama calling Warren “Elizabeth” was disrespectful and would he call a male Senator by their first name (answer, yes, he does, and he has, particularly one’s who he seems to be on friendly terms with). Then saying Obama “made it personal” by doing so.
So trade deal or not, why the need to make some sort of sideline “Obama is sexist” comment was unnecessary to the argument about the trade policy. And N.O.W. piggybacked on Brown’s quote to then also say that Obama’ was being sexist.
As for his wife being a ‘PUMA”, I’ve got no skin in that game, cause I don’t tend to use the “PUMA” moniker much anyway.
Kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Omnes, it’s a fight and Obama gave as good as he got. He basically said Warren is a political hack who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Do I think it’s sexist? No. But I also don’t think Warren is a political hack who is building a brand, or whatever. The President wasn’t discussing trade policy. He questioned her motives.
Her hypothetical was no more “political” than his was, and, incidentally, no more “hypothetical” than 650k jobs.
They have differing positions and they’re trying to push them. He got personal so Brown got personal back. I;m sure they’ll all survive.
Fair Economist
@Cacti:
Actually, for once this is pretty accurate. In spite of its name, the TPP isn’t mainly a trade deal. Mostly it’s an agreement to “harmonize” laws on a wide variety of issues, especially copyrights and patents but also some other things like food safety and labor treatment. It also provides a mechanism for foreign corporations to sue governments before corporate-appointed juries to force them to follow the provisions of the TPP. So it really does take a meaningful part of the authority of US governments and hands it to a bunch of corporate-appointed juries.
It’s not a *huge* step toward world government, but it is genuinely a step in that direction.
Omnes Omnibus
@Kay: Oh, I agree with you. I was just pointing that the Connis Schulz is a PUMA meme is appearing on this very blog.
Anne Laurie
@John Cole +0:
There’s a difference between “Obama said something that could be read as sexist” (and I agree with Brown on that) and “Obama is a sexist.”
Corner Stone
@lamh36: Give me a fucking break. Obama wants to call out his party and say they are nothing but bottom down politicians with their own agenda? And then get to walk away free ballin’ when people don’t give a god damn to take that shit?
Nope. NOPE.
Anne Laurie
@Kay:
You always bring the sanity, Kay.
Thank you!
Corner Stone
@Kay:
Uh huh
Uh huh
Preach
Preach it!
Baud
Obama now needs to play the race card against Brown, since it’s all good and just part of a vigorous debate.
Anyway, I’ll let you guys fix all of this. Way past my bedtime.
mike with a mic
@John Cole +0:
He called her by her first name and used negative language. It would have been OK if done to a male, but it was completely sexist when done to Warren and is exactly the sort of thing we’d bash a Republican for.
Like it or not, some lines of attack or types of attack are sexist when used on women.
This is good for us, we can use it when Clinton is in the general.
jl
Total fucking bs gets said by most people who are sincerely personally involved and invested on opposite sides of high stakes issues. I’m not going to pay much attention or worry about what Obama or Brown said. Unless one of them starts losing perspective and keeps saying total fucking bs over and over again, or decides to turn it into some total fucking bs feud.
EditL I see Kay already said it. Internet very slow here tonight on the lefty coast for some reason.
Corner Stone
@Fair Economist:
Like Boys II Men?
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud:
At this time of night, we are more likely to break shit.
askew
Big props to the asshole who just implied Obama was sexist because he disagreed with Warren? Oh, that guy can go fuck himself. Brown took an intelligent debate and brought it into the sewer with that bullshit. He also managed to actually be sexist by going around defending Warren’s honor like she is some kind of damsel in distress who can’t stick up for herself.
Sad thing is I actually agree with Brown on TPA/TPP. But, he is sure alienating me with that bullshit. Can’t say that I am surprised. With his wife’s disparaging comments about Obama in the past, I expected Brown to go personal in his attacks on Obama. Certain Dems sure seem to have a problem respect the office of the presidency now that Obama is in it. Didn’t have the problem with W or Clinton though.
Elie
@Baud:
Yeah, its all good… just “bidness” right?
I’m sure they will all get over it
askew
@John Cole +0:
Yeah, it actually insults both Obama and Warren. Makes Warren look to weak to defend herself and insults Obama by smearing him with BS.
Kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
I don’t think Obama’s argument on jobs stand the test of fact and scrutiny. I get why he made them though. Because he’s trying to push his position.
I thought the “law professor” thing he said was weird, honestly. We don;t like them anymore? Wasn’t he one too?
Omnes Omnibus
@Kay:
I couldn’t stand a few of mine.
jl
@Kay: Thanks for link.Nice interview. Looks like Obama kids are growing up with good attitudes towards politics and life.
Kay
@askew:
Sherrod Brown has been fighting on bad trade deals for 20 years.
askew
@Kay:
Bullshit. Brown smeared the president for no reason. He brought the discussion into the gutter. Like I said, not surprised coming from the husband of Ferraro-lite, Connie Schultz, who is crowing about Brown’s comments on twitter. It sure does seem that some white Dem “populists” go out of their way time and time again to insult Obama. It’s too bad that they haven’t realized the party has moved on from their race-baiting, hard-working white voters and today’s base doesn’t like that bullshit. Alienating the Obama coalition hands the election to the GOP and if “populists” keep personally smearing Obama that will happen. He’s got higher approval than Hillary does right now.
Kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Me neither but I think it;s weird to even start on “hypotheticals” on trade deals.
The entire theory is a freaking hypothetical. Talk about glass houses.
Belafon
@mike with a mic:
Can’t quite tell which side your on with this (the last line makes me think you’re being sarcastic) so I’m just going to springboard off it by asking everyone: How was Obama’s criticism in any way different than how he’s treated male politicians, for example, McCain?
Kay
@askew:
I disagree. I think Obama’s comments on Warren were personal. He didn;t just say he disagreed with her. He said she was acting as a “politician” to “get her voice out there” while he was not and that’s nonsense.
She’s not “wrong”, either. Arguably, she’s right, just like his 650k jobs could come to pass.
I think he partly went after Warren because he wants to shore up GOP support in the House. That’s okay by me. It’s a strategy to get his deal. They want a different deal. That’s how it goes.
askew
@Kay:
That may be, but he stepped in a pile of shit by implying Obama was sexist. It reeks of him trying to appeal to the racist white voters that Hillary chased in 2008. That isn’t our party any longer and there was zero need for Brown to go there otherwise.
priscianus jr
The real story here is not that Obama was pushing the fast-track and the Democrats defeated HIM. It’s that the Democrats defeated the huge economic forces that are trying to push that trade agreement down our throats. Obama is just carrying water for them, sometimes a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do even when he’s president. Obama may or may not be in favor of it personally, I don’t really care, this is not about Obama. It’s about Democrats standing firm, and I’m proud of them. Brown and Warren deserve a lot of credit. As for calling Obama sexist, I don’t really think he is, but Brown got annoyed. Let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill.
Omnes Omnibus
@askew: Bullshit yourself. Kay was pretty much spot on. Obama made personal comments about Warren and Brown responded with personal comments about Obama. Both Warren and Brown would still be welcome guests at the next White House event and are still allies of Obama on more issues than they oppose him. Politics ain’t beanbag. Obama sure as hell knows that; do you?
Elie
@Kay:
Does Sherrod even believe there can be good trade deals, or is this just his MO? Seriously. Its a great gig. The “deal” of course is never perfect and there you are — ” I told them … bla bla bla” Everything evil that has happened to workers forever is directly attributable to our corporatist economy can be traced in a cause and effect way, right there, right? So its crystal clear — there can be NO good trade agreements, EVER… if its a trade agreement, it is on its face wrong and evil
jl
@Linnaeus:
Thanks for link. The disagreement within the Senate seems more important for today’s vote than Democratic Senator’s hardened stances on the TPP, but the US national affairs press is egregious.
I noticed this bit in the WaPo story:
” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), one of the Senate’s fiercest opponents of free trade, said late Monday that the vote to proceed would fail unless Republicans made a more solid commitment to take up the related bills. ”
Now, that is not total fucking bs, I think it qualifies as a damned lie. The corporate press distortions and propaganda upset me a lot more than a few off the cuff comments Obama or Brown make in the heat of the moment.
askew
@Kay:
They may have been personal but they weren’t sexist and Brown was blowing a dog-whistle by going there and he knew it. This is the kind of shit that got the Hillary campaign into so much trouble in 2008.
It’s also incredibly insulting to Warren. She is quite capable of taking care of herself and doesn’t need Brown infantilizing her this way.
I do find it humorous that NOW has managed to weigh in. Can’t be bothered to say boo when the Obama women or Valerie Jarrett are being attacked, but Warren’s white so they hoped right to attacking Obama over it. They don’t call it the National Organization for White Women for no reason after all.
askew
@Omnes Omnibus:
Implying someone is sexist goes way beyond what Obama did and Brown had no reason to even get in the middle of the disagreement anyways. Well, unless he thought Warren was such a little fragile flower that she couldn’t stick up for herself. Brown needs to sit his ass down or actually stick with the facts and not this BS. All he is doing now is alienating progressives who might actually agree with him but don’t like where Brown’s attacks are going.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: Name a trade deal in the past 30 years that has been good for workers (esp. American workers) or the environment. You seem to be arguing that we must have trade deals to be competitive. What is about this deal that will make us more competitive? Why do you support it as you appear to do?
fuckwit
@priscianus jr: Ding ding ding, a winner! But our media is so stupid and so focussed on interpersonal drama that they are completely ignoring the policy differences, why they exist, why they should be discussed, etc. They’re like a great big high school, everything is a fucking popularity contest, status and pecking order bullshit.
Omnes Omnibus
@askew:
Well, if they are going to cut off their noses to spite their faces over a small spat that Warren, Brown, and Obama have probably forgotten already, then they aren’t very clear on what their priorities should be.
@fuckwit: @priscianus jr: This. And especially this.
fuckwit
@Omnes Omnibus: Also, competitive at WHAT, exactly? Competitive at destroying the environment? Competitive at lowering wages for everyone? Competitive at getting corporations off the hook for taxes? Competitive at privatizing the profits and socializing the costs? Really? If I hear the word “competitive” one more time in political/economic discussions I’m going to scream. Life is about much more than competition, and one must always consider what exactly is the goal of the game people are supposedly competing in– and whether that’s even a good thing to be competing for.
magurakurin
damn, if some of you think what Obama said was some sort of personal attack, wow, I don’t suggest you try growing up and going to a Junior HIgh in the Philadelphia area. Or just walking down the street there for that matter. Isn’t Warren from Boston? I’m pretty sure she can handle whatever anyone tosses her way. They are a surly lot up there as well. People are reading way to much into all of this. They disagree. That’s it. And it isn’t like the world is going to stop spinning either way with the TPP. Hell, it might get shut down by Japan. A lot of opposition to it here as well. And here it is mostly a trade issue: how many cars can Japan sell to the US and how much rice can the US sell to Japan.
I wish there had been this much focus when the Iraq War was starting up. I seem to remember that there weren’t very many people on the “against” side of the room. Pretty sure some of the people championing Warren now, were either for the war or on the fence. Most of the damn country was. That was a way more important decision than the TPP.
Kay
@Elie:
Elie, he’s asking for very specific things. He wants the following: he wants labor protections, environmental protections and money for displaced worker training, and he wants them in Fast Track. Why does he want them in Fast Track? Because he learned after NAFTA he won’t get shit unless he gets it up front.
He also wants currency manipulation protections, because he has pushed that for a decade. He’s right, too. The reason these countries don’t want currency manipulation regulation is because “the status quo” gives them an unfair advantage.
Fast Track is the mechanism he can leverage, because Wyden wants the trade deal and Wyden wants those things TOO. He won;t get them unless he gets them now.
You know, this probably isn’t a shock to Obama. Reid announced a month ago he wanted all 4 of those in Fast Track.
I actually think the forced labor piece is very smart. Now that’s enforcement! They can’t even bring it in if they’re using forced labor.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: As I said previously
““Being competitive”, “Remaining competitive”, “Staying competitive”.
These are all garbage time phrases that business CEOs, job retraining shills and education reformers all rely on.
They mean nothing, they are exactly like falling down the rabbit hole where a word means exactly what I want it to and nothing else. But yet they spur fear in working class people. Fear for their jobs, their futures and the futures of their children. Just as they are meant to do.
Competition or being competitive means risk, it means insecurity. How does a worker remain competitive? Skills training! Adding value! Working harder for less, surrendering work/life balance for the greater productivity of the company’s bottom line!
How does a student remain competitive? More education, even if that means charter schools or for profit sham colleges.
It’s all a scam. It’s a way to keep all of us looking over our shoulder for “the competition”. The H1-Bs from India, the students from South Korea, in the ’80s it was the Japanese. Off and on it’s the Chinese.
It’s economic fear mongering. “
kc
I’m sure Obama’s partisans wouldn’t be upset if Warren gave an interview explaining why Barack has it all wrong.
KG
Honest question, what are the odds that the treaty could be ratified the conventional way? Are there 13 Dems that would vote to ratify if it came to that?
ETA: I’m wondering, because if the Tea Partiers in the House are going crazy about this, then the traditional method might be a better way to get it passed.
Belafon
@Omnes Omnibus: Go back further than that. The last 30 years include an awful lot of Republicans.
Now, if the TPP makes it out of negotiations, it will be interesting to see what protections it has for all workers, not just Americans. Because, as long as workers in other countries are being exploited, US workers will suffer.
Elie
@priscianus jr:
Yeah, too bad they couldn’t in the 2014 elections when they couldn’t even say that ACA was a good thing or anything Obama did was even half good. Couldn’t hear a peep then. Using that brain bleach again, I guess.
Interesting dynamic with Hillary though. She can’t directly advocate for TPP cause the Progressives will punish her for her husband’s NAFTA. She can’t say shit against Obama cause black folks will just get amnesia about her name therefore can’t say much in support of Brown or Warren either, especially as they trash Obama. Tough.
Belafon
@Kay: What was Obama’s view on those four bills, other than them possibly preventing fast track approval?
Cervantes
@Kay:
Yes, he was one and he said so in the interview. His point was that, like law professors do, Warren is spinning out hypotheticals and basing her objections on same. The word “speculative” was used.
Without my commenting on that, let me just add before retiring that the charge of sexism in that interview seems to me not credible. He was asked about only one Senator — Warren. And while he did respond using only her first name twice and her title and last name zero times each, it seemed natural in context. If they hadn’t been close now for years, I might have heard and seen his “Elizabeth” differently.
I’m not sure why Sen. Brown and NOW’s Terry O’Neill see it differently — but that’s their prerogative. I’m just not convinced by what I’ve heard them say about it.
Also about Matt Bai’s interview questions: he had 20 minutes and did not even mention “fast track.”
Omnes Omnibus
@Belafon: NAFTA was the first major trade agreement in my period of awareness. I supported it. I was wrong. I oppose fast track for any trade deal and I will be interested in seeing how this one actually ends up. Maybe the other three trade agreements will get joined in and the deal will be worth supporting. OTOH, I am not holding my breath.
Cervantes
@Belafon:
It has been suggested that, with nothing to lose but their chains, they should, perhaps, unite.
askew
@kc:
Not at all. I am an Obama partisan and I oppose TPA/TPP. But, I have a huge problem with Brown’s rhetoric towards Obama. With the record amount of bullshit Obama has had to face in office, I have zero tolerance for Dems personally attacking Obama. Warren, on the other hand, is an actual adult and I think could speak coherently about her problems with the trade deal. Hell, O’Malley and Sanders can too. It’s just Brown who had to get in the gutter.
KG
@Cervantes:
Um, shouldn’t we want congresscritters to do this? The whole “unintended consequences” thing?
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
@kc:
She’s pretty much done that. As a supporter of Obama on many things, i say good for her.
Belafon
@Cervantes: I definitely agree with that. But it won’t happen until our middle class pulls it’s collective head out of that big giant ass.
askew
@Elie:
Nah, Hillary is just a coward. She’s been hiding from the media since the day her campaign started. She’s sending out her husband and daughter to talk for her. It’s embarrassing. Say what you will about Jeb Bush but at least he isn’t running from reporters.
If Hillary had any actual principles, she’d have answered media’s questions on TPA/TPP and a host of other issues. Instead she is having her family and staff float possible campaign policies out and giving speeches where she contradicts her entire political career.
In short, she’s playing prevent defense already and is going to end up losing the general election because of it.
Kay
@askew:
Well, we;ll agree to disagree. I don’t think Obama should unequivocally state people are “wrong” because they disagree with what is his THEORY on what this trade deal will produce.
He had to make it about jobs because that’s where Congress would be vulnerable- on the accusation they were exporting jobs. He was giving his Congressional trade deal supporters political cover and to do that he had to go after Warren.
Belafon
@askew: And I put your interpretation up against Beltway media Heathers whine that Hillary Clinton is ignoring them (DK link).
Corner Stone
@Elie: Enjoy President Rand Paul.
Kay
@Belafon:
The White House wouldn’t comment on the 4 bills today. They said that was an issue for Congress.
So, no White House support. The White House needs all the Republicans and as many Democrats as they can get. It isn’t in their interest to side with the Democrats in Congress at this time. That would peel off Republicans.
El Caganer
@askew: If she keeps up the disappearing act she might not make it to the general election. The only reason I can think of that she can lie low at the moment is that none of her potential opponents have enough money to make a big move right now.
Elie
@fuckwit:
Man, you live in a different world than I do.
Competition has both personal and group dimensions. Sure, you are right in that one can just bail and live in their own paradigm. That is the nice thing about being free enough to have that choice. For others, either due to their life needs or perspective, there is no avoiding that “sorting” of those who get certain things and those who do not. Black people who bailed on that because they didn’t have the skills or the access were who you saw on the stoops and streets of Baltimore. The black people who clawed ourselves into the middle class, had to know competition in the cruelest sense — with the deck stacked against us many times. White folks just take your choices for granted and suffer little from either choice. Black folks do not have that luxury and yet even with that awareness for some of us, we still can’t do it.
Internationally, competition is the world. Every first world nation, esp in Asia and the Pacific think about this non-stop. Their clear vision allows them to prepare their children and to have a pragmatism about what they need to do.
We may not like it, but we are the leading super power. It may not last, but opting out comes fraught with a lot of consequences — esp for those on the lower rungs of US society. While I totally agree that trade agreements in the past, and our corporate reality, has led to great and persisting inequality, bailing on the competition to sustain our status in this world would punish the poor way worse than the rich, who would just go to the next glittery alternative.
Yes, we need to protect our people and try our best to make sure that the playing field is fair — but we must be IN the completion.
askew
@Belafon:
Lord save me from the emptyheaded cheerleading at Daily Kos over Hillary. Only they could turn her being a pathetic coward into a net plus.
And if the national media was too hard for Hillary to handle, she could have done interviews with local media who would have asked her about policy issues. The Des Moines Register’s candidate interviews are some of the best in the country on policy. But, apparently she can’t do those because her focus group hasn’t told her what positions to take this cycle.
Corner Stone
@El Caganer: It’s about 6 years to the election. You want her to stand up in the crosswalk and paint day-glow spray paint on her chest?
Fuck askew. Don’t swallow that haterade.
Kay
@Cervantes:
I understand the anger then, from Congressional Democrats. Because the 10k jobs at Nike and the 650k jobs are speculative too, and came not from a law professor but from a think tank.
You see my point, I;m sure, because I won’t shut up about it :)
Both the President AND Warren were playing some very hardball politics and BOTH were speculating.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cervantes: I think it was phrased a bit better in earlier versions. No offense intended.
@El Caganer: What is the political advantage that she gains by splashy public statements at this point in her campaign? Most candidates are just introducing themselves to a national audience at this juncture, She doesn’t need to do that.
Belafon
@askew: Obviously you don’t read Daily Kos. You really shouldn’t be passing judgment without reading the different things written there.
Corner Stone
@askew: Reminds me of a Chappelle Show sketch with the pimp of the year competition.
“Hate Hate Hate”
askew
@El Caganer:
Sanders is her only competition right now but he isn’t going to run a campaign that Hillary will take seriously. Hillary is going to lie low the entire nomination cycle. She already got her way on only having 6 DNC sanctioned debates and not allowing any outside debates/forums. She’s going to try to skate through until the general election and then she’ll have to face a media storm because she hasn’t answered 1 serious question so far. It’s a moronic campaign tactic. But, considering how boneheaded her last campaign was, I am not surprised.
Elie
@Corner Stone:
Not a problem. There’s no difference, right?
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: If this deal doesn’t happen, will the US stop participating in international trade? No. Please tell me how the US will be disadvantaged by not being a part of this particular trade agreement. Or, alternatively, how will the US benefit by being a part of it?
Belafon
@El Caganer: Actually, she can lie low because the primaries don’t start for another 7 or so months.
And remember, she could have gone the Jeb route: I’m not running, so can you please give me a million? I wouldn’t go to “at least Jeb’s talking.” Today he said “If I knew yesterday what I know now, I would have shut up.”
Mike in NC
Warren/Brown 2016! They would win exactly zero electoral vote in this country.
El Caganer
@Corner Stone: I have nothing for or against Hillary; I do think that a long period of relative silence can be an opportunity for one of the other candidates, but I don’t think any of them have enough juice to take advantage of it.
Kay
@kc:
That;s part of it too. They can’t debate him directly because that isn’t how “Presidents” and “Senators” work in our system so it winds up sounding like unprovoked attacks unless you follow the whole story.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike in NC: I am perfectly happy with them where they are now.
El Caganer
@Belafon: I guess I’m just remembering one of our old sayings when I worked at the railroad, “You can’t make any mistakes if you don’t do any work.” And we didn’t make very many……
kc
@Elie:
Who the hell do you think passed the ACA?
Elie
@askew:
I’m gonna cut her some slack. She is going to be in quite a knife fight later.. there is nothing good in her getting major injuries now.. and a path to future attacks. Yeah, it looks squishy, but if I were advising her, that is what I would want her to do. This is going to be an ugly ugly election that will make 2008 look like candy. I don’t think it makes sense for her and I am glad that Obama is taking the contact for now… he can walk away since he will be out of office soon and doesn’t have that many more fucks to give.
kc
@GHayduke (formerly lojasmo):
Yeah, I was just riffing on the first-name thing. Shoulda put “Barack” in quotes.
The whole thing is such a maddening distraction.
Belafon
OK. I looked up some history. The debates for 2008 started in April, 2007. There were more than six, and there were 8 candidates.
Obama actually declared in February 2007.
nellcote
Sherrod is just jealous that Elizabeth is raking in more dough with her fundraising emails. He got his name in Politico now so he’ll probably be cranking out the golden emails.
Kay
@Mike in NC:
Well, that;’s fine because neither of them are running for President.
Oh, if they get the protections it works out better for Clinton. She’ll have that to point to. Remember, Republicans have a bunch of governors and Jeb Bush and Obama is a Democrat. They’re not going to have to answer for this trade deal if it’s unpopular. They didn’t have anything to do with it.
Clinton will have to answer for it and she already has all the NAFTA baggage from Bill.
She needs the Sherrod Brown labor protections nearly as much as the Vietnamese workers do :)
Elie
@kc:
Sure. But the point is why didn’t they talk it up. Praise the President and key policies What does “passing it” mean otherwise, for chrissakes. Its an election… people should know your successes – Get it?
Cervantes
@Kay:
As stated above, I saw no reason to comment on Obama’s argument — and I’m sticking to that!
But yes, I see your point, of course.
And now to sleep, perchance to dream — maybe even of trade agreements, with Ricardo and Ohlin and Krugman appearing in cameo.
On second thought, maybe I’ll have another cup of coffee.
lamh36
Welp, I already broke my new rule about not engaging certain commenters and sticking to talking politics in person. I’m realized I prefer to look in someone eyes when politics are discussed. I’m not as glib or nuanced or eloquent as or wordy as some can be online. I like the back and forth of person to person discussion. It one of the reasons why I don’t really do well with online only classes in college.
So I’m gonna get ready for bed. Gonna continue following the news about the derailed Amtrak train in Philly. Sending good vibes Philly’s way.
Good night BJers
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: I think this may be straying a bit from the trade discussion.
ETA: And I would be interested in your answers to the questions I posed above.
jl
@Elie:
I’ll say this again. Tariffs around the world are already very low. The US is not withdrawing from the World Trade Organization which has mechanisms to police broader barriers to trade and access to markets. The US is not withdrawing from global multilateral trade talks that involve most countries in the world. (edit: though, this may well be by US choice, after the last attempts at real multilateral talks failed, the case can be made that the US took its ball home in a pout and has been one of the main high income countries pushing the current approach)
The TPP is one or many special piecemeal trade deals that involve just a few countries at a time that the US has pursued since global multilateral trade talks broke down in the mid 2000s.
The short and medium run effects of the TPP have little to do with the economies of countries competing against each other. The short and medium run effects are imposition of extreme intellectual property rights policy that has been popular in the US for some time. The short and medium run effects will be strengthened patent and copyright protections that favor US big drug, communications and IT companies. MORE patent and copyright monopoly protection. Which is restraint of trade, LESS competition, not more.
Now, you can argue that this is good because if favors US companies that will make some people in the US richer. Or, you can argue that in the long run, the increased innovation from stronger IP monopoly protections will result in more trade overall. Or this might be good for other reasons. I don’t want to argue that now.
But, really, there is very little in the TPP that will produce more competition in the conventional sense that occurs after import and expert taxes are lowered, or countries are given more access to foreign markets. Those barriers to trade are already very low, and there is really not that mach more additional welfare to be squeezed out of gains from trade from further reductions.
i think that is a demonstrable truth about the TPP.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cervantes:
You may want to consider amphetamines. Gotta go with what works.
askew
@Elie:
I’m not. She’s been running for a month almost and her website doesn’t have 1 solid policy plan. She hasn’t answered 1 real question. We have no idea where she stands on the major issues – TPP, Iran Deal, etc. She is just a blank void. When she has actually given a policy speech we got vague talking points that contradicted her entire career. Otherwise, all she is doing is raising money behind closed doors.
Voters have a right to know where she stands on issues. It is showing that she has no leadership ability. I’ve never seen a major candidate behave so cowardly and as if she is so unsure of what her policy views are that she has to duck reporters instead of answering questions.
Elie
@Omnes Omnibus:
Only in the sense that I was pointing out the failure of Democrats to stand together during the 2014 elections when we might have saved the senate and retained Democratic influence there instead of having that election characterized as a butt kicking for Obama. Now, using different approach, they are administering another butt kicking. Is that clearer?
kc
@Elie:
Um, passing it means that it exists.
I think that’s more important than whether some unspecified Dems bragged about it in their reelection campaigns.
Elie
@askew:
Believe me, I have been plenty wary of Mizz C. However, looking at the race ahead, and the nature of that race and the creepy lethalness of her opponents, I want her to be very careful. This aint like the old days anymore when you could stand up and say things straight out and battle them fair and square.
I believe (or hope) that she and her people, are doing the research and getting ready. I pray that she is ready for this, that she is strong and most of all that she wants it and want it BAD. She will need to …
Naw. I am cool with her stance right now.
Toschek
I am wondering why, liberal as I am, Democrats would want to inflict suffering on these countries by holding fast on currency manipulation – it’s not like we don’t do it too c.f. “quantitative easing”.
There has to be a better way to do this deal but you can’t just subject over a billion people to penury overnight, that’s just evil.
Omnes Omnibus
@askew: Given that her stated plan is to listen to people then offer plans to deal with the issues they find important, her lack of major policy statements is rather understandable. You may disagree with it but it is exactly what she said she was going to do.
@Elie: Well, maybe they learned a lesson. Should we flog them for that?
Elie
@kc:
Bullshit
Politics is about messaging almost more than reality. If you don’t get that, you don’t get politics. Despite the fact that ACA was the law of the land, no one “knew” it as a message off a success nor any of the other successes of the administration. ACA was defined as a “failure” that Republicans successfully touted and Democrats allowed to be savaged.
askew
@Elie:
The problem with that is by waiting she is just letting the rust accumulate on her. She is a mediocre politician at best. She needs to be out practicing her answers to voter and reporter questions and to actually practice giving an interesting speech. She just doesn’t have the natural talent that Obama or Bill Clinton has and she needs the practice.
Plus, there is a lot of mess she needs to clean-up on the emails/Clinton Foundation. Yes, they aren’t a big deal but her team was caught in like 10 lies between the stories. Better to get that BS out now and put it to rest like Obama did with Wright so it won’t work in the general.
And what Hillary is doing now isn’t working. Her favorables are falling and her trustworthy #s are plummeting. All voters are hearing is about scandals regarding Clinton Foundation, legal cases about her e-mails and how she is hiding from the media. The only positive news on Clinton is coming from her harem of slimy surrogates and staffers. And no one is going to be swayed to support Hillary after listening to Carville, Lanny Davis, etc.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: In fencing lore, they note that flashy, aggressive moves can work wonders in a tournament. However, the person who wins a duel (where injury or death is on the line) is the one who doesn’t make any mistakes and then takes advantage of the mistake made by his opponent.
askew
@Omnes Omnibus:
Oh, please. She isn’t listening to anyone outside of a few hand-picked supporters who got to ask her questions on specific topics. Oh, and her rich donors at closed-door fundraisers. That isn’t listening. That is surrounding yourself with sycophants who aren’t going to tell you anything you don’t want to hear. If she wants to listen to voters, do a real townhall with more than 10 people where her campaign doesn’t spend time questioning them to make sure they are supportive enough. Of course, considering how cowardly she is and how little respect she shows for the American voter, she’ll probably have her staff plant questions again.
eemom
@askew:
Dude/dudette. I don’t usually do this kind of thing, but, having gotten into a sort of “love thy BJ neighbor” mode today, I will venture this suggestion: maybe you should take it down with the Hillzhate just a notch.
For your own sake. I mean, we’re looking at 18 more months here. You’re gonna drive yourself crazy.
Brachiator
@jl: So at best the Democrats have fought to maintain the status quo, which gives advantage to corporate interests. Labor isn’t helped, jobs will not be created or saved. Wages will still be stagnant. What price victory?
Omnes Omnibus
@askew:
Who is hearing this? The average voter who isn’t paying a bit of attention, or the political obsessives who constitute maybe 3% of the population?
Edited slightly
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom:
Cold meds?
Elie
@jl:
Ok. Now we are getting somewhere — even though you don’t want to “argue”this. But this is precisely an important issue. If you are unable to make that argument, do you think that the S Koreans or Japanese or “other” countries would have any problem pushing their advantages? Of course, these are always a balance and heavily “competitive” (there is that bad word again), but it is how to push put your companies in the most favorable situation in a highly competitive and increasingly risky market place. What? You just say, oh we don’t do that sort of thing? If other countries are finding many different ways to provide advantages to their companies, are you saying we should sit it out on the sidelines out of some sense of, wow, what– gee can’t we all make nice together?
I believe that we are in a very important period of realignment and adjustment. It is important to not end up on the wrong end of things and to be very aggressive and clear eyed about our opportunities as well as our risks. As I said, this aint 1960… not sure everyone gets how true that is — or what that means.
kc
@Elie:
LOL, okay.
Elie
@Omnes Omnibus:
Touche! (:-) )
jl
@Brachiator:
” What price victory? ”
Avoiding the risks of another trade deal that does not deliver as promised, as in, for example NAFTA.
I get the impression that you think there was some huge political or policy damage done from the defeat today.
I cannot imagine what that would be.
Blocking the TPP is going to be any kind of campaign issue? I think issues like the ACA and federal minimum wage, financial reform, tax policy, family leave policies, will be far more important than the TPP not passing.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: Okay. Step back. You are attacking anyone against this deal as against any and all trade deals. Offer some argument for why this deal as it stands is to the advantage of the US. I’ve asked a number of times – quite politely. So now I say, put up or shut up. You want the agreement: tell me why it helps the US.
Fair Economist
@Elie:
Hillary’s book says she opposes the ISDS provisions and considers them not acceptable in a trade deal, so if she’s consistent she’ll be against it. I think she may be held back more by a desire not to tick Obama off, as he’s possibly her most valuable ally ATM.
Elie
@jl:
TPP or fast track?
Ya know, you are probably right. No one might know or care if it doesn’t pass. It doesn’t still make it a possible mistake, depending on what ends up in it. Of course, its so difficult to assign causation to complex policy, so no worries…
Elie
@Fair Economist:
Maybe. could be right.
Thanks
askew
@eemom:
Thanks but I am already resigned to this subpar candidate with questionable ethics being our candidate. I am getting my bile out of the way before the general election when I have to pretend that she isn’t the perfect example of why people loathe politicians. I find bitching about Hillary to be incredibly stress reducing. I am sure it sucks to read though, so I’ve been trying to not comment here much. Today I didn’t succeed. I’ll try again tomorrow.
Steeplejack (tablet)
@Omnes Omnibus:
Drinking.
Omnes Omnibus
@Steeplejack (tablet): I stand by my theory.
mclaren
Zandar needs to step in now and explain why we all need to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
So when Obama shrieks that Warren’s claims were “absolutely wrong,” and Elizabeth Warren points out that
then we should all just give Obama the benefit of the doubt for his secret treaty that he won’t let anyone see, because secret laws and secret trade treaties and secret corporate courts overriding U.S. laws are the way America works.
Seriously, Zandar, you need to just come clean and proclaim your allegiance to Karl Rove and his buddies. Secret treaties and secret corporate courts aren’t the way the law works here in America.
Omnes Omnibus
@askew: Interestingly, this thread wasn’t about Clinton, but you still managed to go there.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Speaking of cold meds, you might want to try some.
mclaren
@askew:
No, this isn’t correct at all.
The TPP will be a non-issue if it dies in congress during Obama’s term. With Bernie Sanders in the race, Hillary’s big issues will be inequality and raising the minimum wage and shutting down the Citizens v. United supreme court abomination and cutting back the limitless growth of corporate power. No one will give a shit about the TPP once it’s dead, except its diehard corporate supporters.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Good god. I actually agree with something mclaren said.
Elie
@Omnes Omnibus:
I do not necessarily want it. I want to SEE THE DAMNED DEAL before we crush it. I want to understand the impact of our not being one of the signatories and how that positions us in world markets. What are our advantages and disadvantages.
All I have heard from you guys — even before its finalized, that you don’t want it with no analysis of impacts beyond the same we don’t want NAFTA again. Sorry that aint enough…
Are YOU sure that its totally bad and we can do better without it or at least not have our market position negatively impacted? Are we in good position to protect our intellectual property in new technologies? Do you care?
Hell, I am 65 years old with no kids. I’m sweating out possible best scenarios for all you folks with kids — . Where do you want the US to be in 10 years? Proudly in the second tier? We have a shit load to do. Our educational system for kids sucks. We are not lined up to be competitive without really paying attention to how we can position ourselves using every fucking advantage that we have.
I am not against it… I want to hear something more than “its all bad and its like NAFTA”. If you kill this, what is the plan? Don’t need one? That is not enough.
fuckwit
@Elie: I have a conflicted opinion about this. Here’s the short summary:
Politics IS more about bullshit than substance, but THAT’S NOT OK, we can’t move forward as a country or as a species that way, and I do not think it’s productive to just (cheerfully, or resignedly) accept the Bullshit Factor growing exponentially higher over time in just about every area of public life: politics, business, religion, economics, media, etc.
c.f. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu3hy4OMX38
If we’re going to survive as a species, we can’t all be selling each other bullshit all day long. We’ve got to bend the bullshit curve.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie: The vast majority of people were against Fast Track. As I have said above (you can scroll up), if it comes packaged with the the other trade deals that are pending it may well be worthwhile, but then again since we don’t know the actual provisions of the agreement at this point I am rather hesitant to support it.
ETA: I have long been an internationalist. I tend to be okay with interventions in other countries as long as they comply with certain principles. I am in favor of foreign trade as long as the scales aren’t tilted.
jl
@Elie: You are arguing as if world trade is a zero sum game.
I can give you a macroeconomic argument against increased patent and copyright monopoly protection. There is a lot of evidence that excess supply capacity and depressed demand is responsible for a lot of economic problems around the world, from continued recession in Europe, to lack of real wage growth in the US, to stalled growth in Latin America, to growth in East Asia that only looks good because it looks so bad in most of the rest.
Now, how is allowing giant corporations suck up more money from making their patent and copyright monopolies stronger, allowing them to charge more money for drugs, communications services and software going to help that situation. In a way, it is a privatized version of the very wrongheaded early New Deal policies of reducing supply in a depressed economy.
How is helping make software giants more powerful and allowing them to charge more for the same products going to make low and middle income countries grow more or become more innovative? Unless you think that the only hope for higher real wages for poor people in low income countries is that they toil away in giant multinational corporate factories. And I do not see that the TPP promises more effective labor protections, since from what we know from the leaked text, the enforcement provisions are just as weak as in previous details, even if the written standards are supposed to be higher (though some vigorously disagree even on that much),.
There are disadvantages to smaller companies and start ups in the US from giving more IP protection, to large corporations in the way that the TPP does. The audience of Stiglitz’s talk to the dissident TPP negotiators contained several representatives from US start ups and smaller companies who were very concerned that not only the increased IP protections, but they way they were included in the TPP, would put them at a disadvantage.
So, there is plenty of room for argument on this point. I have to go now, but I guess we can continue on another day.
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie:
Please tell me how this agreement has any effect on any of this.
jl
@Elie:
” TPP or fast track? ”
Sorry, I was vague. in terms of political consequences, I meant both.
@Elie:
“I do not necessarily want it. I want to SEE THE DAMNED DEAL before we crush it. ”
I can agree with that. I said in previous thread that I was definitely opposed to fast track. Can’t say I am opposed to the TPP,itself, because, as many have pointed out, we are not sure what is is yet.
I am opposed to these kinds of piecemeal, special deals for a few countries at a time, which are pushed mainly by large corporate interests. Their agenda is not free trade, or fair trade that benefits most people in most countries. But, if it turns out to be a better than nothing deal, or could be made into one, I would not be opposed.
Problem is, I am very much opposed to the current US approach to IP protection, patent and copyright policy. It is by any historical standard, very extreme in favor or large companies with large portfolios of patents, many of which exist only to make competition,on any time scale, very difficult. So, any TPP that I thought acceptable on IP protection would probably be of little interest to large drug, communications and IT corporations.
Fair Economist
I’ve seen a lot of Hillary lately. She’s already gotten way out in front on immigration and criminal justice reform with the strongest and best positions of any serious presidential candidate I can think of for at least 25 years. Those were good speeches too. Rusty? Heck no.
Hillary is a politician, not an analyst or an agitator. Her job is to look at what the public will vote for and what proposals are out there and figure out how to combine them into a winning campaign for an administration that will help the country as much as possible. The “progressive manifesto” just dropped today. She *should* wait until she can see some analysis on it and public reaction before deciding what to get behind or to incorporate into her platform. If anything, she’s too far in front with policy proposals.
@Elie: You are putting *far* too much weight on this deal. Even if it were all good, it’s just not consequential enough to save the country. It’s a trade and patent deal with about 12 mostly smaller countries we already mostly have wide-open trade with. If you’re really concerned about the country doing well, it’s way more important to copy some of the German labor practices, cut down on monopoly power, or address the infrastructure crisis.
@Omnes Omnibus: I am similarly shocked.
Elie
@Omnes Omnibus:
Ok– got it _ WE DONT KNOW WHAT IS IN THE DEAL
I agree we need to see the deal but also hold that it is perfectly acceptable to me (as with Iran agreement), that the details are not fully known before it is final. I have totally been convinced by you guys that nixing the fast track is the democratic thing to do so I am ok with it. I also realizes that it makes it a bit harder to get a final deal if the deal is rejected and has to go back to the other signatories, but that is democracy. I want to give the President a break and wait to see what he is able to get and the rationale. If it sucks and has no benefits for us that support our economy in the broadest sense, I can take its defeat. Of course, I want you to acknowledge that perfection is not the bar this has to pass under. The hard task then becomes what is “imperfect” to whom and how imperfect is ok. That is the tough thing.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Dude, I was arguing against Fast Track. Is it some kind of false flag, double blind shit? Please explicate.
Elie
@Fair Economist:
Well if that is true, what are you guys so uptight about? No biggie is no biggie either way. Also, says you think Obama must then be an idiot to venture so much political capital on something so truly unimportant, as you say,anyway.
jl
@Omnes Omnibus:
” Is it some kind of false flag, double blind shit? ”
Well, please tell us what is not, whoever you REALLY are.
Jimgod
@Omnes Omnibus: *emerges from the shadows*
A helpful hint from a friendly lurker: she won’t answer you. There have been 3 threads in the past 2 days on this issue, in all of them you and Corner Stone have asked her that question about 20 times and she only answers with the ACA and the 2014 elections which have sweet fanny all to do with this deal. (Never mind the whole white liberals are attacking Obama thing.)
I do find it telling that the supporters of this deal here keep harping about an alternative and how the Dems don’t have one so we should support this like it’s a do or die thing. Newsflash: it’s not.
*recedes into the shadows*
Brachiator
@jl: Sorry, invoking the ghost of NAFTA is just empty specuflication, as Dubya might say. But the truth is that this defeat maintains the status quo, which is pretty shitty for jobs and workers.
There is some political damage, and some of this may be Obama’s doing as well. You have the Democrats fighting to prevent Obama from pursuing his domestic agenda, just as you have Republicans fighting to prevent Obama from pursuing his domestic and foreign policy agenda. And when the Tea Party applauds the Democrats, I have to wonder who really accomplished something here.
Other ramifications, including impact on the presidential campaign? Too soon to tell. But the progressive lunatic fringe is running wild. Comments on this story in the Guardian accuse Obama of toppling the Ukraine, among other sins, and accuse Obama and Hillary of being tools of extreme right wing corporate interests. I expect crap like this to intensify.
I agree with you that TPP may not be a campaign issue. The GOP has already won. If they retain a majority in Congress and also win the White House, they will probably push for their version of this. And if history offers a clue, the feckless Democrats will cave and give in. And since as you note, there will be meatier items on the table, the Democrats won’t waste time claiming that they did a good thing in opposing Obama here.
NotMax
@Baud
Ahem. That’s “enhanced diplomacy.”
Omnes Omnibus
@Elie:
No offense, but fuck you. I have supported a metric shit ton of our President’s policies using that exact rubric. If you have questions about that, please consult the archives. Do not play that card on me. Obama had been the best president of my lifetime (and I was born before LBJ was elected), but his education policies and trade policies suck.
jl
@Elie: Last word before I have to go.
TPP may be no biggy in terms of lowering trade barriers as they have been defined So, it NOT a biggy in terms of how previous, genuine free trade deals have improved welfare in the US and abroad.
But it may be a big deal, in the US and abroad, in terms of its IP protection policy. More immediately for lower income countries when they have to pay more for patented drugs and other products. Over the longer term, the IP provisions may have noticeable adverse consequences in the US as well. So, in that sense, it may be a biggy, and I think it would be big in a bad way, first for poor countries, then maybe for us.
Of course, big drug companies say it is necessary for their survival and to continue their important drug discovery process. But I am not gong to make their case for them, they have plenty of money for that.
I will note though, that the way patent protection works to improve welfare is only through its effects on future innovation. The patent monopoly on current drugs, especially the way the drug supply chain works for customers with little purchasing power, is to suck up all increased welfare produced by the patented drug. If that balance between more innovation in the future to compensate for the patent holder sucking up all welfare gains from their current products is got wrong, the consequences will be very unpleasant for poorer folk. Especially for drugs.
Fair Economist
@Elie: I think it’s a bad deal. It’s not going to condemn us to second-rate status. It’s still worth opposing vigorously. Similar to NAFTA that way.
From your side, it’s theoretically possible to have a deal to harmonize various legal issues with Japan and a dozen smaller countries which is a net plus. But it’s not going to save us from second-tier status if that’s in the cards.
I do ask, for those who are supporting it, to come up with *some* specific and actual benefits from the deal. The fact that nobody seems to be able to, including Obama, makes me even more doubtful there’s any benefit from it.
Omnes Omnibus
@Fair Economist:
I have asked a number of times but I get crickets.
jl
@Brachiator: I’ll have to check back later to see if you can explain what world you are living in.
” But the truth is that this defeat maintains the status quo, which is pretty shitty for jobs and workers. ”
How?
And what part of the country to you live in that you think bitterness about previous trade deals is all long forgotten.
And really, the lunatic left only started raving about Obama’s plots and betrayals and sheer diabolical evils today? As of the minute the fast track was blocked on a procedural vote? That started right today?
You seem to me to be in some kind of panic over this that is way out of proportion.
Elie
@jl:
while I hear you, would you want foreign countries to infringe on large company patents just because they are held by large companies? I am totally down with the power and unfair advantages that large corporations have and that they have warped our country’s economy and politics. Do I want to go so far as to completely remove any advantages that they have in competition with foreign companies, or governments acting as business entities to protect their markets? Not sure I want to do that. Lets talk about that more. Without a doubt, S Korea takes care of Samsung and Daiwoo, etc. Samsung is a big guy, not some dinky little company. South Korea sees them AS South Korea. Is our strategy only to protect our smaller companies? Is our goal to avoid supporting any corporations? Many hire a lot of people but I guess that is not defensible given we shouldn’t credit any positive role for them at all (I know you are not saying that)… I’m all for a balanced economy but I am also a realist about using the strength we have to the best. If you or the progressives have a vision, does it exclude having powerful corporations entirely?
AxelFoley
Fuck Sherrod Brown, fuck Elizabeth Warren, and fuck ALL their supporters.
And I’ll let a colleague of mine finish things off:
h/t to Kennymack1971 at pragmaticobotsunite.com
Omnes Omnibus
@Jimgod: That commenter has been around for quite a while. She is a reasonable and sensible person. I will have patience with this discussion. You may do as you choose.
Elie
@Fair Economist:
Ok.
Between you and jl, I am convinced that this may be a bad deal and would have little impact if it fails. You gave me some concrete information that seems decent and credible.
Have no idea why Obama has put so much in this… it is uncharacteristic for him to support truly bad, weak shit, but that appears to be the case for now — I trust him a lot so it is a lot to not back him on this — a LOT
Omnes Omnibus
@Brachiator: You are an idiot.
@AxelFoley: You also are an idiot.
Elie
goodnight all.
Omnes Omnibus
@AxelFoley: How is this trade agreement a good thing?
ETA: If it is a good idea, you should be able back it up.
karen marie
@El Caganer: Makes perfect sense that Hillary isn’t running her mouth to every media outlet. Why would she make endless soundbites to be used against her, whether honestly or not, throughout the primary and general elections? She has plenty of time when that will become necessary. Also, why take attention from the GOP clown car?
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Ummm, you should note that I have taken positions opposed to Fast Track. So piss off.
Fair Economist
@Elie: Well, we agree. Obama does have a good track record. Why is he pushing so hard for this?
I am willing to be convinced it’s a good deal but nobody’s doing it. Whatever the case, I’m absolutely opposed to a 6 year fast track authorization. Obama should finish the deal and then, once we can actually see it, we can discuss whether to approve it. If it’s a good deal but 67 Senators aren’t too be had, then it might be OK to fast track THIS DEAL ONLY. However, there are apparently 65 friendly Senators already and we’re not seeing insane obstruction a la McConnell so I think this treaty should be voted on the constitutional way. If they can’t cut a deal to get 2 more Senators on board, maybe we shouldn’t do it.
Omnes Omnibus
@karen marie: Exactly.
fuckwit
@Cervantes: That’s a deep and important insight masquerading as a snarky little clever comment. You’re exactly right. Marx realized that very early on: capital can fly across borders to seek the cheapest deal much faster and more easily than human workers can… and that was well before all this globalization stuff, which has accelerated the process ridiculously. If the workers are COMPETING with each other, divide and conquer, they lose, and the capitalists win. If the workers are united, and make the capitalists compete with one another, then the workers win. So these trade deals in general are all about opening borders for capital, and leaving them closed for people. Worse, they’re about extending the powers of corporations across borders too, i.e with IP restrictions.
There’s a damn good reason why the first unions were INTERNATIONAL unions or had aspirations to be international: they’d have to be in order to truly be a counterweight to international capital.
I think it’s way beyond time to harness the international power of the internet to organize workers worldwide in solidarity against capital and their own corporate-owned governments. How the hell that’d actually work, I have no idea, but hopefully someone will soon.
mclaren
@Brachiator:
That’s a lie.
And it’s a particularly stupid lie.
There is no equation whatsoever between Republicans blocking Obama and the Democrats from raising the minimum wage or passing a law mandating maternity leave for workers, and Democrats blocking Obama from ramming through a secret transnational trade pact whose text is too classified to reveal to anyone, and whose provisions according to Wikileaks allow corporations to override national laws at a secret arbtiration court staffed exclusively by corporate lawyers.
One of these things is not like others, Brachiator:
[1] Raising the minimum wage for U.S. workers;
[2] Forcing through a secret trade pact which lets multinational corporations gut American laws by a secret extralegal arbitration process.
Can you see the difference?
Everyone else can.
Dyslexia much…?
fuckwit
Aaand, for some reason, this whole issue brought this to mind too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdLf4fihP78
srv
All this f’ing ranting about Korea… You people need to listen up:
Now that would bring order to Balloon Juice.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: @Omnes Omnibus: I await your apology.
ETA: You really are nuts. ‘Kay.
mclaren
@fuckwit:
Good point. The TPP would allow multinational corporations to gut U.S. health and safety regulations on the basis that other countries like China or Haiti don’t impose these burdens on corporations, so corporations should not have to suffer such strictures when producing goods in the U.S.
Say hello to more Triangle Shirtwaist fires. (I’m going to just assume everyone knows about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in which 145 women were burned to death in 1911 because of inadequate fire suppression and locked doors bolted from the outside, preventing workers from feeling the fire.)
Source: “How the Deaths of 75 Workers at a Chinese Factory Could Have Been ‘Easily Prevented’,” Michelle Chen, The Nation, 6 August 2014.
The TPP lets corporations override national laws to race to the bottom, forcing the standards of the worst nations in worker health and safety, worker pay, worker rights, and so on onto all nations. The TPP functions a lot like the Supreme Court’s 1978 Marquette ruling which mandated that credit card companies could wipe out the previous usury limits on interest rates and use nationwide the highest interest rate of any state in which that corporation operated. The Marquette ruling laid the foundation for today’s 35% credit card interest rates with exploding balloon payments and penalties, as well for the today’s 300% and 500% payday loan and title loan legalized loansharking operations carried on by corporations as prestigious as General Electic (whose division “GE Capital” uses to legalized loansharking to generate 70% of GE’s annual corporate profits).
What the 1978 Marquette decision did for interest rates, destroying usury rates and devastating America’s middle class with a nightmarish debt burden, the TPP would do for a broad range of worker protections, for every signatory nation.
The TPP is a nightmare from hell. It’s the ultimate corporate power grab.
If enacted, the TPP would make a world like this dystopia a reality.
Kathleen
@John Cole +0: Totally agree. Brown is an excellent senator but while I disagree with him on TPP. I respect him for disagreeing with the President. But the accusation of sexism is BS.
Condi's Cousin
@AxelFoley nope, you aren’t alone and KennyMack not alone…they’ll learn
chopper
@mike with a mic:
i’m sure if warren had called the president by his first name while being negative to him over the trade deal it would have been racism, right?
Kay
If someone can explain to me why Democrats should vote for this without getting anything Democrats want I’m all ears.
I’d also like to note that the White House didn’t support the Democrats publicly on actually securing these priority items although the White House has been insisting for two years that the Democrats’ priorities are the same as the trade negotiators priorities.
Cervantes
@fuckwit:
Well said.
If one looks beyond the corporate media, one sees people trying. There are glimmers of hope here and there. The cooperative movement is not going away. People in the global south are (literally) dying to secure the right to organize. Environmental challenges are binding nation to nation. You’re right: it’s not a picnic; more ideas are needed and an eternity of work remains.
Thanks.
Betty Cracker
@Condi’s Cousin: There are at least three blithering idiots on the Internet, then? Shocking!
Cervantes
@chopper:
You’ve almost stumbled backwards into the one argument that may hold some water: i. e., because it’s held to be impolite for senators to refer to presidents by first name, Obama, too — or any president — should maybe eschew the privilege, just out of an excess of fairness and courtesy.
Still not seeing sexism, but I think it’s arguable that (at least one invocation of) “Senator Warren” might have been advisable in a formal interview.
Kay
@Condi’s Cousin:
Obama went after Warren personally because Warren is the big marquee name and he knew it would get media attention. Saying “Sherrod Brown is building his brand” doesn’t have the same effect, although obviously the White House knew that Brown was the one working to block it in the Senate. Brown then invoked Warren for the same reason. Political. Both sides.
Saying someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about and is opposing something not for their constituents but for their own gain is personal. Of course it is. What if Warren had said “Obama is supporting this for his legacy, because he wants a ‘China pivot’ on the list”? Personal or issue-based? He questioned her motives. That can’t be anything other than personal.
debbie
Alas, if only he had the same effect on the Ohio Democratic Party.
chopper
@Cervantes:
lol, always the self-righteous prick, aren’t you.
Mark
@chopper:
This exactly. I’m sure even firm Obama supporters would generally scoff at the idea that Warren would be “acting racist” or what-have-you if the situation were to be reversed in that manner.
BobS
@Dumbest Motherfucker on the Internet: You’re late — was the clown car in the shop?
@Omnes Omnibus: That “reasonable and sensible” person also offered the valuable insight that Obama’s primary reason for supporting TPP was to “disrespect” white progressives while ignoring multiple explanations (spanning several threads) of the dangerous implications of this agreement, i.e. increasing intellectual property protections while undermining citizen self-government in the form of ISDS. Not to mention her failing to respond to multiple requests that she explain an urgent need for this agreement.
Kerry Reid
@askew: Well, and the fact that Warren was a Republican well into the 1990s — long after the misogynistic and anti-choice fever of the party was in full swing. I guess that didn’t bother her at the time. But it does make me feel less sympathy because she gets as good as she gives from the president.
Also, it’s weird that people who consistently refer to the presumptive 2016 Dem nominee by her first name alone suddenly develop the vapors around this issue. Is it sexist to say “Ready For Hillary?”
kc
@Omnes Omnibus:
LOL, good luck with that.
Kay
@Kerry Reid:
I think there’s always been a kind of exception when people promote a first name themselves. I’m not crazy about candidates using just their first name on campaign promotions, but I think we can safely say she approved it. It’s hers, and that’s the difference.
Obama did a similiar thing with “Obamacare”. His adopting it made it okay (and it was also smart) It’s an agency thing. It’s like “how do you pronounce your name?” If the name is spelled “Carol” and the person says “Ann” you pretty much have to go with that :)
Cervantes
@chopper:
Thought you’d appreciate that! — but self-righteousness had nothing to do with it.
chopper
@Cervantes:
oh, so just plain ol’ prick. gotcha.
Cacti
I’d say it’s fairly paternalistic of Brown to presume that his adult female Senate colleague needs him to defend her maidenhood, if that’s the way he’s decided to play this.
Makes her look weak and like she can’t fight her own battles.
Cacti
@Kay:
Hi Kay.
Have you come up with a reason yet for why it was okay for Charlie Pierce to agree with the right wing that the POTUS is uppity?
What level of personal insult toward him from his erstwhile allies crosses a line for you?
Or do you agree that he’s an uppity sexist like Pierce and Brown?
kc
Eff it, this is the Internet …
Kerry Reid
@Kay: I can buy that. PBO probably should have been more careful in using the honorific. I just don’t see that failure to do so makes it a sexist thing, as Brown is arguing. And I also find it paternalistic, as some here are pointing out.
Waysel
Given Obamas long, horrid history of misogyny, Browns remark makes lots of sense. O, wait…. My respect for Sherrod Brown just took a big tumble.
Jimgod
@BobS: Glad I’m not the only one who noticed….
liberal
@BobS: She did explain—we need to remain “competitive!”, whatever that means.
liberal
@Brachiator:
Right. The status quo sucks, so lets quickly do something to make it even worse.
The stupid, it burns…