Look what NAFTA did to Ecuador and then tell me I'm posting too much about the TPP

[cali]

and I haven't even started in yet with the TTIP. I'm outraged about it. And most of you probably are too.

<snip>

Consider Ecuador. Under U.S.-Ecuador's Bilateral Investment Treaty, which mimics the investor-state system enshrined in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the largest ever reward from one of these tribunals has hit the poor country of Ecuador hard. In a decision by a World Bank tribunal last year, Ecuador lost to Occidental Petroleum and now is being forced to pay a penalty of $2.4 billion for ending their oil contract. Ecuador, reeling from decades of environmental pollution by Chevron/Texaco in the Ecuadorean Amazon, had concerns with Occidental illegally selling off portions of the agreed-upon oil contract without government authorization, a move that abrogated the contract. Now the country is billions of dollars in debt.

Consider Peru. This case, involving Peru and a company called Renco Group Inc. and its subsidiary Doe Run Peru, owned by U.S. billionaire Ira Rennert, is equally disconcerting. Pollution from the company's lead and zinc smelters, which are operated in the mountain town of La Oroya, was linked with high lead levels in the town's children. After myriad cases emerged of mental retardation, convulsions, anemia and stunted growth, Peru ordered an environmental cleanup, to which Renco responded by launching an $800 million claim against the government under the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. The company claimed that the cleanup ran Doe Run Peru into bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the kids get sicker and the town poorer.

[Read the U.S. News Debate: Should Congress Interfere with China's Currency Policies?]

Consider Canada. After Quebec passed a moratorium on fracking two years ago because it wanted to conduct an environmental impact assessment on the impacts of leached chemicals and gases from fracking, U.S.-based company Lone Pine Resources demanded $250 million, saying Canada violated its NAFTA obligations. The company had planned to frack 30,000 acres near the St. Lawrence River, injecting toxic chemicals into a critical watershed. These kinds of cases where a nation's laws are usurped by extrajudicial tribunals are only becoming more common.

Recall that Obama was against this a few years ago: According to Barack Obama on the campaign trail, "We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications." U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman will be asking Congress for fast-track authority to move forward these investor-state provisions within any forthcoming trade agreements. Two-thirds of the Democratic freshman class in the House of Representative came out opposing it.

<snip>

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/07/08/us-eu-trade-agreement-needs-more-congressional-oversight

[msongs]

1. notice what is missing from the obama quote in the last paragraph - protecting our constitutional

rights and our sovereignty. He kindly says we will not give greater rights to foreign investors than are given to to US investors. Investors....the planet over will have the same rights to eff us up.

[forestpath]

18. Even if he did say he would protet our constitutional rights, I wouldn't believe him.

[Enthusiast]

55. His credibility is a thing of the past....nt

[liberal_at_heart]

2. well we know that part in Obama's speech about not privatizing our public services is a lie.

So is the rest of it.

[pa28]

3. K&R

[cali]

4. outraged kick

[Progressive dog]

5. Just curious, which of these trade agreements were negotiated by President Obama?

Since that was a rhetorical question (the answer of none, nada, zero is correct), it was in reference to this handy little quote that apparently you misunderstood.

Recall that Obama was against this a few years ago: According to Barack Obama on the campaign trail, "We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications."

Only 2 of your 3 examples are bilateral, none were negotiated by President Obama. Did you assume that he promised to abrogate all existing trade agreements, based on his statement about negotiating?

[cali]

10. The TPP and the TTIP are both high priorities of the President's and his

administration is indeed negotiating them. Read the flipping article before you come off looking ill informed. The article uses NAFTA as an example. We know from leaked documents that the same sort of Tribunal- favoring corporations over the laws of nations and states in the U.S.- is part of what the administration is supporting and negotiating for.

Oh, never mind. You've clearly decided that defending the president is more important than what these two trade agreements will do.

[Egalitarian Thug]

27. He didn't really want an answer, you libtard.

Like I was just looking to kick your thread again.
& R

[cali]

35. heh. evidently I am a libtard. I fall for it every time.

thanks for that kick

[Progressive dog]

47. Top priorities, I see and of course the

Congress will cave instantly to fast track. We already have free trade with just about every nation in the world.
I'd actually like to see what is in free trade agreements before attacking the President over them.
I know it's hard to believe that there could be people who don't automatically reject all trade treaties before they are written.

[rhett o rick]

49. What is your argument? It's terrible but not Obama's fault. Good fucking grief. nm

[Progressive dog]

61. Obviously, your argument is that it is terrible

but I'm not a soothsayer, so unlike you I don't know what is in them.

[cali]

63. here: there have been leaks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

[Progressive dog]

65. There are always "leaks", but they're not always true.

Why accept leaks as gospel when the actual agreement will be public before Congress gets to vote on it?

[cali]

66. oh ffs. these leaks have been confirmed as true.

I'm done with you. It's impossible to have a discussion with people who have no respect for facts.

disgustedly,

cali

[Progressive dog]

70. Of course they have, that's why Congress

doesn't have the treaty, it's already been negotiated and they were just waiting for it to leak before voting on it.
That must be why they're still negotiating, they have to give the leakers more time to build support against it.

[zeemike]

86. It kind of blows me away

That not only is a treaty by our government OF the people must be kept secret from the people...but not only that, but that some people feel that is just fine.
We have defiantly went down the rabbit hole

[JEB]

93. That is exactly what I was thinking.

Must be done in secret as the people would never be in favor of more give aways to corporate interests.

[cadaverdog]

106. It's not a treaty,

And will not have to meet the congressional requirements of a negotiated treaty. From Wiki:

In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that a requirement for the conclusion of TPP negotiations is the renewal of "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority.[54] If "fast track" is renewed, then the normal treaty ratification and implementation procedure would be bypassed, and the United States Congress would instead be required to introduce and vote on an administration-authored bill for implementing the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments, with the entire process taking no more than 90 days.[55]

Yeah, something stinks here, and the guy I twice voted for is deep in the middle of it.

[zeemike]

107. So fast track is an end run around the constitutional requirements.

How convenient is that.
And I voted for him twice too.

[pampango]

109. I don't see Obama getting fast track authority particularly from the republicans in the House.

republicans would not give Clinton that authority in the late 1990's (even though he has pushed through NAFTA) for partisan reasons and they did not trust him. It's hard for me to believe that republicans - even more partisan, hateful and untrusting than in the 1990's - will vote to give Obama the authority they denied Clinton.

[zeemike]

114. But if they did what would that say?

To me it would say that is their agenda...and it don't have to be all of them, just enough for it to pass and no filibuster....thus maintaining the illusion of a difference.
And of course dems will call it a victory for them because a dem president did it.

So we shall see....and if I predict it right you can remember I did.

If I sound cynical it is because I am...the people at the top are manipulators....that is how you win these days.

[daleanime]

53. Yeah, I would like to see whats in them too....

problem is our government doesn't want us to.

[Progressive dog]

64. NAFTA was public before it was passed,

every other trade agreement was public before it passed, but OUR GOVERNMENT is going to pass this one in secret.

[daleanime]

67. TPP?

[Progressive dog]

69. TPP will be public before it's given to Congress, just

like every other trade agreement going back to the the first Constitutional government in 1789.

[daleanime]

74. Huh, do you think we'll have....

days or hours to debate its merits before it receives a straight up or down vote, no super majority needed here.

[Progressive dog]

77. I'm not sure where in the laws of the USA

there is anything about us getting to debate it. We have a representative government, the representatives decide how much debate is enough.

no super majority needed here.

Not true, at the present time a super majority is needed.
In the Senate, when a minority wants to continue debate in spite of majority opinion, they get to filibuster. Only 41% of Senators have to want to stop TPP in order to stop it, unless they pass fast track. Fast track authority can also be filibustered.

[L0oniX]

80. "We have a representative government" LMFAO

[cali]

56. Yes. Top priorities as he said in his SOTU speech

I have seen what's been leaked. It's bad. You want to see it? Do the fucking research yourself. Just type my name and TPP into the search engine here. I've posted plenty and there are lots of links in my posts.

Now I'm done. I don't waste my time with people who clearly aren't really interested in the goddamn facts.

[zeemike]

88. Which a lot of us here have read

And are truly grateful for I might add...

[bvar22]

45. Lets Roll-the-Tape!!!

Gee!
I should have voted for THAT guy.
Whatever happened to him?



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises.

[Progressive dog]

46. Let's see what he said as he ran for president

[link:http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune

[bvar22]

92. Lets roll another tape:

&NR=1

The really embarrassing aspect about these video clips
is that Candidate Obama makes it crystal clear that he understands PERFECTLY exactly what happens when these Trade Treaties are negotiated in secret ,
without representatives of Organized LABOR, Human Rights, and Environmental protections
present at the negotiations.

So I'm glad that he is now President,
and has made sure that representatives of Organized LABOR, Human Rights, and Environmental protections ARE present at the negotiations for the TPP.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh wait.
My Bad.

President Obama has made sure that representatives of Organized LABOR, Human Rights, and Environmental Protections [font size=3]have been EXCLUDED, Locked OUT of the negotiations
and is claiming Fast Track authority to have this treaty passed without debate or amendments with a simple Up or Down Vote in Congress.[/font]

And since we have The VIDEO, he can't claim that "I didn't know this would happen" .

Folks, "NAFTA on Steroids" is already a Done Deal.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[zeemike]

89. I thought I did.

But someone else took his place I guess...a body snacher...check behind his neck...

[KamaAina]

6. Gee, could that be why Ecuador is ticked off enough at us to shelter Assange?

[Hydra]

7. Thanks for posting this Cali

It's clear they're taking EVERYTHING, one bite at a time.

And it's all so pristinely "legal."

[Recursion]

8. Also the destruction of the Mexican farm sector

The small Mexican farmer got hit harder than anybody else with NAFTA.

[byeya]

22. Maize almost has religious status in much of Mexico so it's doubly hard when farmers

of small farms are forced off the land.

[Recursion]

24. And the land has gone from thousands of varietals to three

Sigh

[Teamster Jeff]

9. K&R.... Keep the TPP posts coming

[antigop]

11. Thanks, cali. Keep posting. DU rec. nt

[RB TexLa]

12. Of course treaties supersede national laws. You want more isolationism because you disagree with

some outcomes of international disputes?

Fortunately both the TPP and TTIP will both pass be signed and implemented.

Enjoy screaming at the clouds, you will not stop the future.

[BornLooser]

19. Massive Derp, and check out the handle...mmmhmm, yep.

[mbperrin]

34. "Some outcomes"? Retarded children, stunted growth, shortened lifespans, ruined watersheds.

Yeah, I disagree with these "outcomes."

And if the government won't handle it, sooner or later, they will find that Mussolini wrongly thought that he could help his rich industrial buds without personal consequence.

Monkey-wrenching is a time-honored tradition in many places. Unjust outcomes mandated by the "officials" in charge will find that quiet resistance is difficult to stop and very expensive to counter.

The future is wind and solar, BTW. Filthy nuclear, oil, gas, and coal are already on their way out. Like all obsolete commodities, price will spike and hold, encouraging substitution. Never goes back from there.

See wood to coal to gas and now electric.

See whale oil to kerosene to electric lights.

History is on our side.

[Ed Suspicious]

36. Again, a neolib calls unfettered trade a force tantamount to the hand of god. Makes me sick.

[JDPriestly]

13. Trade agreements:Give up your sovereignty and we will let you trade.

[Autumn]

14. Keep on posting about it cali

This can not be posted enough.

[another_liberal]

15. I would never say . . .

I would never say you are posting too much about the fucking TPP. By all means, please do continue.

[Catherina]

16. Don't ever shut up. I read all your threads about this and bookmark them

This issue is too important. It will affect 800 million people if it passes. This is many, many times worse than NAFTA

[forestpath]

17. There is no such thing as posting too much about the TPP. Betrayals don't get any worse than this.

[BornLooser]

20. Africa is next up to be bled dry by the unholy, sub-human vampires...

And those who invest in them, mmmhmm, yep.

[byeya]

23. Africa? Larry Summers said Africa was "under polluted" - Not for long

[BornLooser]

25. Sad, but true.

[byeya]

30. What kind of a scumbag would look at a region - a continent in this case - and declare

it could do with more poison in its environment.
And why did Obama hire him?
Summers is a neoliberal/neocon associated with several public failures and yet he's always employable at a nice wage.
Got fired from the Harvard presidency, didn't he?

[BornLooser]

37. Not to hijack the thread, but I have debated that very question with my friends here in town.

I've heard everything from: "He has to, so he can engage the other side, because the House won't work with him". This pisses me off to no end! Really?! How's THAT working out for Us?
Then there is the tired: "He's a corporate plant, an elaborate ruse on Us". Hmmm...not computing.
Finally, there's the "He's being Clintonesqe, with the move to the middle" Third Way? I have doubts. I keep giving Him benefit, after benefit of said doubt, and I still don't get it. Maybe He will go down in history with His biggest accomplishment being elected, twice. I just don't get it, beyond the whole "part of the 1%" meme. It don't look good...to me. How many Dems have served in cabinets positions of the BFEE?, and is that a legitimate question? IHNFC!

[ctsnowman]

21. The

worst government money can buy.

[SunSeeker]

26. Worse than Bush? nt

[ctsnowman]

28. I said government

not president and Bush is as low as the bar goes so...

[mtasselin]

29. defending

I stopped defending this president a long time ago. He has shown that he does not care about the American people only about the asshole corporations, at some point there will be a world wide revolution.

[cantbeserious]

31. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[WillyT]

32. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[drokhole]

33. Caught this on Netflix, worth the watch: "Speaking Freely with John Perkins (Economic Hitman)"

The same guy who wrote the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man gave a pretty lengthy interview on the matter (including inserting ourselves/multinationals into "third world" countries with promises of trickle down rainbows and butterflies and in reality enriching a select few while saddling the country with crippling debt) that's available in full here:

[dougolat]

43. Thanks for this vital historical lesson.....nt

[Laelth]

38. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[Kolesar]

39. Have you written to any of your elected officials about this? This story...

...has been out for a year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

[cali]

40. yes, 2 of the three. I know where Bernie stands

[truedelphi]

41. If only some bio-engineering genius could clone us progressives the

Old Obama, and then the bio-engineered Obama could kick the new Obama out of the oval Office and onto his butt in the street.

[Nye Bevan]

42. Ecuador isn't even in NAFTA. The only countries in NAFTA are the US, Canada and Mexico.

At least get your subject line correct.

[Kolesar]

44. And TPP is not a "bilateral" treaty

despite the attempts at conflation by Mr. Sad and the author he uses for a reference.

[Elwood P Dowd]

48. You need to read a little better.

The US-Ecuador deal was modeled after NAFTA. So basically the NAFTA model fucked little Ecuador just like it has fucked millions of American workers.

[cali]

60. exactly: it "mimiced" NAFTA. Granted I put NAFTA in the op headline because people

immediately recognize it, but essentially, this is just a little mini NAFTA

[rhett o rick]

50. Does this mean you support NAFTA? Like the Republicans? nm

[Nye Bevan]

51. I support President Obama on this issue (nt)

[rhett o rick]

52. What a good little soldier. nm

[cali]

57. Why? Blindly? Or do you actually know something about it?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

78. Right or wrong?

[L0oniX]

81. My country right or wrong is a thing that no patriot would think of saying..

...except in a desperate case. It is like saying, “My mother drunk or sober.” – G. K. Chesterton

[Marr]

116. ...whatever his position may be."

[pampango]

58. republicans, particularly tea party types, don't support NAFTA.

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/11/09/americans-are-of-two-minds-on-trade/

Democrats were the only partisan group which still supported 'free trade' (40%-35%). Non-tea party republicans were split 42-42, while tea party supporters opposed 'free trade' agreements 63%-24%.

The republican base wants out of practically all international agreements, e.g. the UN, the WTO, climate treaties, arms trafficking treaties, you name it.

[cali]

59. so what? that has to be one of the worst arguments evah. Bernie Sanders doesn't support it either.

and that goes for Sherrod Brown too. And many other great dems. (yes, I know Bernie isn't a dem). The TPP and the TTIP are both horrible- from what we know. And who is negotiating it and the advisors, most of them corporate, tell us a great deal

Here chew on this info:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/07/08/us-eu-trade-agreement-needs-more-congressional-oversight
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130704/11501523720/leaked-eu-policy-papers-show-taftattips-huge-challenges-some-subtle-signals.shtml

[pampango]

62. "So what?" It gives you many tactical allies in fighting TPP. That should make you happy.

They may not share your long-term vision on many issues (immigration reform, foreign aid, Obamacare, US membership in the UN, WTO, IMF, etc.) but they are with you on this.

Tea party types just don't seem to like the rest of the world much. They oppose immigration, trade, foreign aid, international agreements and organizations. But when they happen to agree with you, it helps you politically in that one specific issue to have some "bipartisanship" support.

[cali]

68. just pointing out that that's a bad argument- and a thoroughly contemptible one as well

Want to accuse Bernie and Sherrod and ALL the other PROGRESSIVE dems in the Senate and House of not liking the world much? Go for it.

[pampango]

72. I think Sanders, Brown and others like the world very much. They are not anti-immigration,

anti-foreign aid, do not support the US withdrawing from the UN, WTO, environmental treaties, arms trafficking treaties or any other efforts to work with other counties to deal with global problems. Tea party types are against all of those policies.

As for Sherrod Brown, he does not want the TPP negotiations to stop. He want them to targeted at helping American businesses and workers.

Brown Continues to Urge Administration to put American Businesses, Workers First in TPP Negotiations

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership represents an opportunity for American workers and businesses to sell products and services to new markets, but the rules of the agreement will define whether the TPP begins a new era in fair trade policy,” Brown said. “In ongoing TPP negotiations, American workers and businesses must be put first and our jobs not traded away in exchange for foreign policy goals.”

The TPP is a proposed trade agreement that currently includes the United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, and Mexico. Last month, Japan expressed its intent to join the TPP. Congress has the constitutional authority to set the terms of trade and commerce with foreign nations. The Administration is conducting the TPP talks using authority which officially lapsed in 2007, suggesting it will seek renewed Trade Promotion Authority, known as “Fast Track,” to conclude TPP negotiations, as well as other trade initiatives.

Last month Brown, U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), and U.S. Representative Sander Levin (MI-9), led a group of 49 of their colleagues in urging President Obama to put the best interests of American workers and businesses first as negotiations continued with Japan on its potential entry to the TPP. Brown and his colleagues specifically cited Japan’s longstanding efforts to impose trade barriers and block U.S. exports as actions that have hurt the American economy, domestic job creation, and specifically its auto-industry.

Earlier this month, Brown led a group of seven Senators in urging Acting United States Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis to craft disciplinary language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations for actions taken by state-owned enterprises that discriminate and distort free markets. Failing to craft disciplinary language for these actions, Brown and his colleagues argued, would hurt the American economy and its workers and businesses by adversely affecting the United States’ ability to fairly compete in foreign markets as new nations enter the TPP.

http://politicalnews.me/?id=23179&pg=1&keys=TRANSPACIFIC-PARTNERSHIP-TPP-NEGOTIATIONS

I agree with Senator Brown.

[L0oniX]

82. See ...you were a tea bagger republican all this time and didn't know it.

[cali]

83. yeppers, that's me. maybe I'm some kind of Manchurian Teabagger

placed on DU to..... well, I don't know what.

[pampango]

87. Plenty of Democrats don't like NAFTA/WTO, too. Just not as many as republicans/teabaggers.

Neither the Pew poll or I said that "all Democrats believe this and all tea party types believe that". Obviously, some support and some oppose NAFTA/WTO trade policies in every partisan grouping. The differences are in the percentages.

We all may agree with tea party types on an isolated issue or two. We can take solace in opposing 99% of their policies - they are anti-immigration reform, anti-foreign aid, anti-Obamacare, for withdrawal of the US from the UN, WTO, IMF and practically every other international organization we belong to.

[L0oniX]

108. OMG ...DU will commit suicide over having something in common with the tea party.

[pampango]

111. Seems doubtful. We do circular firing squads better than we do the one-person variety.

And we seem to have survived sporadic agreements with the tea party positions on immigration reform, Obamacare, foreign aid, Syria and other issues. I think we will survive this without terminal consequences.

[rhett o rick]

85. And your point is? nm

[pampango]

91. That the questions, "Does this mean you support NAFTA? Like the Republicans?" would be more accurate

stated as "Does this mean you support NAFTA? Like the Democrats?"

[rhett o rick]

94. The real question is, DO YOU SUPPORT NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and all the

other CON-FUCKING-SERVATIVE so-called Free Trade agreements.

Free Trade is conservative, corporate bullshit. Republicans will poll negative on most anything with Obama president.

The question is "how do you like "free trade""???

[pampango]

95. As a Democrat I support liberal trade. Per Pew, most Democrats do and most republicans don't.

That maybe due to the fact that it was FDR's policy in the 1930's to lower the high tariffs passed by republicans, then he set up structures like GATT and the ITO to provide for multilateral control of international trade. He wanted to make it difficult for national governments to return to the "beggar thy neighbor" high tariff the republicans enacted in the 1920's and early 1930's.

The question is "how do you like "free trade""???

Just like there is no "free lunch" or "free market", there is no "free trade". No trade agreement says "Our two countries will trade with each other like California trades with New York." Now that would take one sentence and be 'free trade'. It does not exist. In reality all those agreements are hundreds or thousands of pages long for a reason.

I do support liberal, low-tariff trade controlled by multilateral organizations. I think FDR was right to believe that is best. I believe that is what most liberals in most of the rest of the world believe.

[rhett o rick]

97. So you support NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. Do you believe they are responsible for the

movement of jobs from America to China, etc.?

[pampango]

102. I support liberal, low-tariff trade. If you need to hang a label on that, that's your call.

"Do you believe they are responsible for the movement of jobs from America to China, etc.?"

Aside from the tenuous connection between a trade deal with Canada and Mexico and our trade with China, American manufacturing employment has been declining since the mid-1950's at a steady pace while manufacturing output has steadily increased. I don't see the NAFTA effect that you seem to believe in. I see a 60 year trend, not a 10 or 20 year trend.

[rhett o rick]

104. I would love to see a graph that shows what NAFTA has accomplished. nm

[totodeinhere]

103. There is both bipartisan support and opposition to free trade agreements.

The establishments of both parties tend to support it.

[pampango]

105. Agreed. That's exactly what this poll showed. They only differ in percentages.

And you are right. Both parties have wings that support these trade agreements and wings that Oppose them. Some "bipartisanship" on both the 'pro' and the 'con' sides. .

[brentspeak]

110. You really are quite shameless in the propaganda dept.

I've met corporate spokes-shills like you before; their ability to repeat the same see-through B.S. over and over and over again and still come back for more is remarkable.

To other DUers: Pampango has many times posted this exact same McCarthyite accusation of "you must be a teabagger if you are opposed to free trade agreements" alongside the same Pew Research chart. Look here (and read the responses to Pampango's posts): http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=648595

So, without further ado, I'll point out simply that the chart Pampango disingenuously links to comes from a Pew Research article entitled Americans Are of Two Minds on Trade: More Trade, Mostly Good; Free Trade Pacts, Not So and that the real gist of the article is that no majority part of any partisan group -- including Democrats -- supports any of the "free trade" agreements:

[pampango]

112. Thou doth protest too much? I made no such accusation here or the post you linked to.

I have posted that a low-tariff trade policy is consistent with FDR and Democratic tradition and less popular with republicans than it is with Democrats.

In this thread alone I have posted that both parties have wings that support and oppose these trade agreements. If that seems consistent making the accusation: "you must be a teabagger if you are opposed to free trade agreements", you have a different memory of McCarthy's tactics than I do.

"...no majority part of any partisan group -- including Democrats -- supports any of the "free trade" agreements."

If I posted that a majority of Democrats support free trade, I apologize. (I don't think I posted that, but you could be right.) The truth is that a plurality of Democrats support "free trade", not a majority, while a majority of republicans (and a supermajority of tea party types) oppose it.

And on the poll you posted, thank you. I think that puts Democrats in a positive light as well. A plurality of Democrats polled thought that 'free trade' was bad for US jobs, wages and economy. A majority thought that these agreements were good for the poor in developing countries.

It does not surprise me that Democrats supported 'free trade' over all, even though it was not beneficial for themselves, because it helped poor people in other countries. republicans, OTOH, thought 'free trade' was worse for the US than Democrats thought. And, of course, even though they also thought it benefited the poor elsewhere, a majority oppose the policy.

As a Democrat, I have supported many policies over the years that 'hurt' me but were beneficial for others, perhaps more needy. Most Democrats have probably done the same. For republicans, if the policy does not benefit ME, they will not support it.

[brentspeak]

113. Comedy gold

"It does not surprise me that Democrats supported 'free trade' over all, even though it was not beneficial for themselves, because it helped poor people in other countries."

The poll reveals that Democrats do not support 'free trade "over all" -- it says the opposite. The poll also shows that support for "free trade" among Democrats is plummeting. Finally, more Republicans and Independents than Democrats believe that free trade agreements have helped "people of developing countries".



Your ability to spin facts and skew information with a straight face is impressive.

[pampango]

117. Indeed support was dropping among Democrats, but a plurality still supported it.

The drop in support shown by Democrats came nowhere near the extent of the drop in support shown by republicans who by this point opposed 'free trade' by a 2 to 1 ratio.

If you are happy that Democratic support is dropping the way you think it should, I can understand that. It must be a little frustrating that republicans (particularly tea party types) are leading the way in opposition to 'free trade' but you must be happy that both parties are trending in your direction.

[Freddie Stubbs]

96. NAFTA was supported by Democratic President Bill Clinton and received bipartisan support in Congress

[rhett o rick]

98. Yes that is history. Why did you mention it? Are you trying to make a point? If so,

you will need more. The Iraq War received "bipartisan" support. I hope you dont think that means it's a good idea.

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. I am refuting your insinuation that supporting NAFTA is a sign that someone is a Republican

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. "According to Barack Obama on the campaign trail, ..." Oh, great. Now we know which way he's going

[HiPointDem]

71. kr

[Fantastic Anarchist]

73. Fuck people who are telling you that you are posting too much about the TPP.

If they don't like it, they can hide the threads.

Myself, I appreciate them.

[Puzzledtraveller]

75. Nothing can break the grasp of dissonance as has been evidenced

by other issues lately. This one no less. It is impossible for us to be wrong, I believe some really think this.

[CanonRay]

76. Please, just keep posting

This information has to get out to people

[truebluegreen]

79. Kick Kick Kick!

and keep posting! Thank you!

[historylovr]

84. K & R

Ignore the ones complaining about the number of posts on this. You know what they say, you can lead a horse to water...

[grantcart]

90. This is a useful OP

While there may be useful elements to parts of the treaty the examples in the article show that large corporate structures related to the extraction industry continue to be a cancer.

Think about it.

No one can own the air above land, it is common for all.

The same should be the same for everything underneath the surface.

All extraction industries should be nationalized and use Norway as an example for investment.

The market system is only effective when all of the costs are incorporated into the market price. When it comes to gas, coal, natural gas only a fraction of the actual cost is reflected in the market price. The cost of countering the pollution is left to consumers who have not benefitted from the profit (not to mention the cost in loss of life when a coal mine collapses).

What ever treaty is agreed to they should exempt out any protections for corporations involved in natural resource extraction and all of the resources under the ground should be held as a common asset for all.

rec'd

[ReRe]

100. Who told you you was posting too much on TPP?

K&R

They have no jurisdiction, so you have my permission to go right on and rant on the secret monster Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty.

And I DO recall very well what PO said, about re-negotiating NAFTA and GATT and not allowing any more such trade treaties to go through.

What comes to my mind is the immortal Nancy Wilson singing:

"What a difference a day makes,
twenty-four little hours.... "

What happened?

Thanks for the OP., and like I said, you go right on and rake up all you can find to show what a mistake this secret TPP treaty is going to be if it goes through.

[questionseverything]

101. what scares me the most is

what are we going to be exporting?

we still build heavy machinery(catapillar),motorcycles(harley davidson),snapper lawn mowers,shwinn bikes and some cars

with the exception of catapillar i dont think there is a lot of demand around the world for these products.....i am afraid the big export will be our food which will cause more increase of costs to us

[Marr]

115. Secret treaties, secret laws, secret courts... and whistleblowers are public enemy #1.

All this while bankers' crimes are made legal after the fact, if not simply ignored completely.

Something is very wrong in this country.

[AZ Progressive]

118. For anyone who doesn't think that Obama's directly involved with the Trans Pacific Partnership

#at=77