Obama lambasted opponents of free-trade agenda, arguing opponents are ignorant of the benefits

[J_J_]

Under the auspices of the December meeting of the President's Export Council, Obama lambasted opponents of the free-trade agenda he adopted from Presidents Bush and Clinton, arguing that opponents are ignorant of the benefits of trade and admonished them to back off in their effort to oppose passage of TPA and TPP by stating: "Don't fight the last war. You already have."

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/2014/President-And-CEOs-Meet%20To-Pass-TPA-And-TPP-1217141.html

I just read this in another article but it is not an exact quote.

Did he really say that?

I just cannot believe he would say something so insulting to the millions of Americans who lost their jobs to outsourcing and are now stuck on unemployment or working at walmart.

This after the spending bill that allows banks to continue derivative trading and the government will cover their asses and allowed companies to steal pensions.

Do we not understand the benefits of stealing pensions as well?

[PeteSelman]

1. Why do you ignorant people want jobs in America?!?!

Why do you not want wage equality with China and India and every other third world shithole?!?!

Don't you see how this will benefit your betters?? Isn't that what Anerica is all about?

Ignorant plebs!!

[roguevalley]

33. when he disappoints, its massive.

[daleanime]

2. Kick....

[Autumn]

3. "Don't fight the last war. You already have." What war was that? NAFTA?

Wow. Fuck. This. Shit.

[djean111]

8. Insulting, isn't it. And this "trade" deal has a LOT more to it than imagined worker and job

protections. It actually strips away job protections.
He is willing to fight his own base? His base is the 1%. The rest of us are supposed to just STFU.
I will not vote for anyone who supports the TPP.

[NewDeal_Dem]

18. +100

[Autumn]

54. He should educate us instead of calling us ignorant. Let us see what's in it

then we can decide if we want to support his TPP and him. I find this so insulting, he claims we are ignorant for opposing the benefits yet HE keeps the benefits secret. I wouldn't buy a used car from him.

[Curmudgeoness]

63. I thought the same thing.

He should go step by step and explain just why each item is beneficial. I have seen some of the items that cannot be beneficial to any of us except the massive corporations and the 1%.

I am really tired of our politicians telling us that we are ignorant and we don't know what is good for us, but they are doing nothing to educate us. This has been one of the biggest problems I have had with Obama---he has not spent time explaining why he stands where he is standing on many issues.

[JDPriestly]

76. The Constitution gives our Congress, that is all future Congreses, the authority

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

This "treaty" would, if what I have read is true and if I understand it correctly, remove that authority from future Congresses and hand it to an international body or court or simply freeze the terms agreed to in the TPP forever.

With each trade agreement, we relinquish a little more of our national identity, of our sovereignty, of our right of self-determination.

These treaties are an abomination. They are a worse threat to the existence of our nation than was Communism or fascism in my opinion. Sorry. President Obama but if our Congress does not have the authority to determine the time during which authors and inventors can enjoy the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries, then we don't even have the most basic rights of self-determination.

I am against the TPP
and proud to be against the TPP/

I am against all these trade agreements that bind us and deprive our Congress of the authority granted to it in the Constitution.


And above all, I oppose any treaties or agreements that would attempt to give to any international body or to Congress the authority to pass laws in violation of our Bill of Rights.

[Katashi_itto]

4. We NEED HILLARY! ONLY SHE CAN IMPOVERISH OUR GREAT NATION PROPERLY!

VOTE HILLARY!

[Autumn]

5. .

[NewDeal_Dem]

15. +100

[ChiciB1]

81. Yeah, And ALL HER Ties To Wall Street...

I've made this comment in jest before, but as time goes by and as one who knew a very different America, I can't help but say that perhaps it's best that I'm now in my 60's. I've really tried very hard, so very hard, but I have a lot of fear about our direction in this country.

I think Hillary was born on the 26th of October, I was born on the 25th... we are the same age. I know she will probably be the nominee, but I can not in good faith say that it makes me very happy.

I do feel Elizabeth Warren can do more good in the Senate, but I don't think Hillary will do much to change the course we are on. In fact, I think she's even to the right of Obama. And my feelings about him are shaky at best.

I DO realize I'm in the minority here, but I believe what I believe. I can also SEE what I SEE and the gap grows larger and wider between the "haves & have nots!"

[JDPriestly]

105. +10000

[PoliticAverse]

6. Here's a Washington Post article on Obama's comments...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-he-willing-to-defy-democrats-on-his-support-of-trans-pacific-partnership/2014/12/03/25edcaf4-7b30-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

[sabrina 1]

9. Well, he's made that statement before, about being willing to defy Democrats.

I wish I could hear him say how willing he is to defy Republicans as strongly.

[Octafish]

22. + The Whole Thing

Given the choice, it's usually easier to pick on people without money.

[pampango]

40. He'll be defying republicans (a majority oppose TPP) more than Democrats (60% support it).

[Maedhros]

56. If 60% of Democrats support the TPP,

then 60% of Democrats are woefully ignorant of how previous agreements (NAFTA, GATT) have gutted America's Middle Class and destroyed opportunity for America's Working Class.

So, how does the fact that a majority of Democrats are ignorant of the effects of bad trade agreements make the TPP a good thing? Just because Republicans oppose the TPP for purely partisan reasons doesn't mean that thinking, aware Liberals should support it.

[cstanleytech]

68. I suspect even if both had not been signed that it would only have slowed the decline a bit but it

would not have stopped it.
The biggest reason for it after all is employers by and large not raising employees wages enough to keep up with inflation over the years in order to siphon off the money to their own pockets with varies schemes such as getting and providing bonuses of stock followed by dividends to themselves and those at the executive level which since they own so much more than most of their employees they see the biggest gain from.
I mean take Publix or Costco, they are good companies in comparison to Walmart, McDonalds or Bi-Lo which arent but even Publix and Costco are paying way below what the minimum wage should be when adjusted for inflation not to mention alot of companies are hiring more part timers (and yes even Publix is doing it albeit not as often) and only giving them 4 - 6 hours a day 3 to 4 days a week in order to avoid providing them benefits.

[pampango]

75. The majority of "Democrats are woefully ignorant" because they do not agree with you. Ouch!

Perhaps 60% of Democrats see the TPP as different from NAFTA and GATT since that is Obama's contention. Since your opposition to it aligns more with republicans than with Democrats, are you right?

Europe has more "NAFTA's" and of course GATT (which is not around anymore) than the US and their unions and middle class does quite well, thank you.

[lark]

86. Just because a large percentage of Dems support it, don't make it right.

Just because a large % of Repugs approve, doesn't mean it's wrong. Some Dems could just be saying that because they don't want to go against the leader of their party. Some Repugs are just reflexively anti-Obama and would oppose him if he said the sky is blue. Facts and policies are what matter.

So Europe interprets the treaties differently, good on them. In the US, these treaties are used by the 1% to screw workers and get around environment regulations. It's not the treaties per se, but the implementation here and in Mexico, was to screw workers and gut regulations.

[JDPriestly]

108. Your statement about Europe is not correct.

The unions and middle class are doing miserably in countries like Italy, Spain and Greece.

The unions and middle class are doing very well in countries like Germany, Austria, Swweden and others.

The difference is the extent to which these countries devised strategies for dealing with a world of international trade many years ago. The countries that are doing well found the proper midddl;e ground between over-planning their economies and having healthily flexible strategies and a well trained workforce for competing with other national economies.

I know this for a fact. I was living in Germany and Austria during the years in which their strategies were taking shape. That was a long time ago.

America is divided. We have crazy nuts who think you don't need a national strategy for education, that it is best just to let profit-hungry leaches take over your education and that planning is just for fools, that focusing on short-term profits and selling your assets to the highest bidder, forget about tomorrow, is the way to run a national economy.

We need to have the employees of our large companies like GE and General Motors and Walmart, etc. SITTING ON THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES. Employees are stakeholders in the companies. We should require by law that workers, employees that is and bosses cooperate to a certain extent in setting the goals of their enterprises. Everybody is in that together. The clerk in the grocery store is just as important to the strategy of the company and should understand and support that strategy as the CEO. As a customer, I meet the sales clerk, not the CEO. The sales clerk says more to me as the customer than does the CEO. Same for all manufacturers.

We need to get a national economic strategy. It should not be rigid. But we should not have states competing against each other for the job-creating industrial sitings. That divides our country. It may be good for big business. But it is very bad for our sense of nation, for the harmony within our country.

We should be on the same page as a nation before we enter into these trade agreements. We are putting our shoes on before we put our socks on. First things first. First we have to be a nation. Then maybe we will be able to compete in international trade. We are suffering under NAFTA and the many, many trade agreements we have. The last thing we need at this point is more trade agreements.

And each trade agreement contains provisions that contradict or usurp the authority given to Congress in our Constitution. Each trade agreement takes a little bite away from our national sovereignty and with it our self-determination.

No to trade agreements. We need to become a nation that is united and has a strategy before we relinquish our sovereignty to other better organized nations with these trade agreements.

[Maedhros]

112. Posters such as Papango care nothing for any of what you've posted.

Obama tells them what to support, and they support it. End of line.

[Maedhros]

111. If not "woefully" ignorant, then willfully so.

Based upon what has been leaked about the TPP, it is antithetical to Liberal/Progressive policy. My opposition has nothing to do with polls, it's based upon the nature of the TPP.

Republicans only oppose the agreement because they oppose everything Obama does. Consequently, by pushing the TPP Obama is not really "defying Republicans", since he is pushing pro-Corporate anti-Working Class policy. He's doing the heavy lifting for Republicans, who get a win-win situation: they get pro-Corporate trade policy AND they get to demonize their political opponent.

And chumps in the Democratic Party will cheer for it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

121. 60% is a meaningless number without context

People who argue for these awful trade deals
prefer percentages over raw data.

A percent suggests greater support than what may actually exist.
For example: how many people were polled?
How many Dems and how many Repubs?

Lets figure 1000 total people polled.
500 of each party
Sooo of 500 self-identified democrats 60% approve...
THATS 300 PEOPLE
Big deal 300 people is insignificant out of 300 million.

Polls are being used to manipulate perceptions

[sabrina 1]

78. That seems in line with how the system now works, doesn't it?

Whatever those in power want, they get. They must maintain the illusion of democracy however. So, pitting the two parties against each other where the objective of 'winning' whatever that means to the people, takes precedence over the issue itself, has become an all-too-familiar tactic. And both sides have fallen for it in the past.

Not so much anymore however.

But getting Dems on board for this and Republicans appearing to be against it, (I don't believe it) ensures support from many in the Dem base, and some Repubs will cross over if necessary, to get it passed.

Later the Repubs who went against THEIR 'supposed' party, will be rewarded by being allowed to vote for something their base really wants.

Iow, I don't care who opposes it, that isn't going to work for me anymore. I admit, it used to to an extent when we were so involved in the 'team' spirit.

But now as more realize how the game is played, people are beginning to ignore the 'oh, did you see what Sarah Palin did today' distractions.

[rhett o rick]

131. The Republicans don't support it because THEY DON'T SUPPORT ANYTHING THE PRESIDENT DOES. nm

[treestar]

19. ...

The administration has argued that the trade deals will boost U.S. exports and lower tariffs for American goods in the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region, where the United States has faced increasing economic competition from China.

“Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers,” Obama said at the Business Roundtable. “There are folks in my own party and in my own constituency that have legitimate complaints about some of the trend lines of inequality, but are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to opposing TPP, and I’m going to have to make that argument.”

Interestingly, the comments at that site from right wingers argue that the TPP is "communist."

Obama:

Obama said that in talking about the merits of TPP, along with a smaller U.S.-European trade pact, he has urged Democrats not to view it in the same frame as past deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. The president said the TPP aims to boost workers’ rights and environmental standards for businesses in some Asian nations.

“Don’t fight the last war,” Obama said.

I don't know if I agree with Obama or not. But he clearly thinks it would be good for the US economy.

[freshwest]

26. Thanks for the details, treestar.

[treestar]

114. Happy New Year freshwest!

[freshwest]

130. Same to you, treestar. Many changes this year.

[rhett o rick]

45. He needs to explain how it's different than NAFTA. When NAFTA was rammed thru

it was sold the same way the Pres is selling this. But more importantly the TPP is way, way more than a trade agreement.

1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.
8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.
10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.

Currently in Germany, a nuclear plant corporation is suing Germany for their loss of potential profits because of the regulations aimed at curtailing the use of nuclear power. The TPP will also allow corporations to sue governments that pass laws restricting their potential profits. If you pass a law limiting the discharge into a river, the corporation can sue.

A good lively debate in Congress would reveal some of the horrible problems but the Pres wants to push this thru without debate.

[treestar]

113. 1 through 10 all need proof and if Obama really thought any of them true

he would not be for it.

As for the sovereignty one, I already looked into that. It was only about arbitrations to resolve disputes.

People need to stop exaggerating. No US POTUS or Congress would give away our "sovereignty." That's absurd. Using arbitration instead of courts would apply to all countries and is not giving away any sovereignty. And bedsides, these disputes would be amongst "corporations" so logically the HOF brigade should be all for them losing their rights to use the US (or other countries') courts.

[YoungDemCA]

126. You're arguing in vain, treestar

I see a lot of right-wing/paranoid Libertarian, Alex Jones fringe bullshit about the "New World Order" and "globalism" here on a daily basis-and it's invariably from a certain demographic that dominates here. And those posts routinely gets hundreds of recs. Disgusting.

[rhett o rick]

128. So do you support the TPP? Or will you even commit? At least treestar will debate while

no one else that apparently favor the TPP are willing to discuss this issue.

Do you support the TPP?

[rhett o rick]

127. A lot of people have looked at parts of the TPP and written about the damage that will be done.

No one has contradicted their arguments.

Re. sovereignty, this is what Sen Sanders says:

U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.

The TPP creates a special dispute resolution process that allows corporations to challenge any domestic laws that could adversely impact their “expected future profits.”

These challenges would be heard before UN and World Bank tribunals which could require taxpayer compensation to corporations.
This process undermines our sovereignty and subverts democratically passed laws including those dealing with labor, health, and the environment.

And Sen Sanders isn't the only one that read the TPP this way.


Also you said, "And bedsides, these disputes would be amongst "corporations"" Not true. Corporations will be able to sue governments including state governments, if those governments take any actions that results in the loss of potential profits.

Swedish utility Vattenfall is suing Germany at the Washington-based International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes over the closure of the Brunsbüttel and Krümmel nuclear power plants.

Vattenfall spokesman Magnus Kryssare declined to confirm German media reports that the Swedish company is seeking €4.7 billion ($6 billion) in damages.

Suing for the lose of potential profits. Germany decided to stop using nuclear power and a corporation can sue them. If you tell a coal company that they have to stop polluting a river, they will be able to sue you (state or federal government).

"Based on the confidentiality rules that apply for the process, Vattenfall cannot give any comments regarding the size of the compensation," Kryssare told World Nuclear News today.

The whole process of the suit will be totally confidential.

And this is just a tip of the iceberg.

[rhett o rick]

129. By the way I respect you for at least trying to debate this issue. No one else who supports the TPP

will actually present their arguments.

But I wanted to comment on your statement that "1 through 10 all need proof". You have that totally backwards. Pres Obama is an elected representative and has the onus to prove that items 1 thru 10 are wrong. But he is choosing to negotiate this agreement (it is wayyyy more than a trade agreement) in secret and wants to shove it thru the Senate without debate.

And besides that, there are a large number of people that will provide proof while all the Pres has to offer is to tell us that we are too ignorant to understand.

[lark]

79. He's either drinking the kool-aid

or lying, don't know which.

[KoKo]

35. What Obama said quoted from WaPo Article:

Administration officials think they have a better chance to win approval for fast-track authority from a Republican-controlled Congress, but in his remarks Obama acknowledged that skepticism remains significant in both parties.

[Obama]

“It is somewhat challenging because of .?.?. Americans feeling as if their wages and incomes have stagnated” because of increasing global competition, Obama said. “There’s a narrative there that makes for some tough politics.”

Obama said that in talking about the merits of TPP, along with a smaller U.S.-European trade pact, he has urged Democrats not to view it in the same frame as past deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. The president said the TPP aims to boost workers’ rights and environmental standards for businesses in some Asian nations.

“Don’t fight the last war,” Obama said.

Labor officials took issue with the president’s remarks and vowed to fight the administration’s trade push.

“It’s a little bit insulting for him to say anybody who is not in agreement with a particularly flawed trade deal he put on the table wants to maintain the status quo,” said Thea Lee, deputy chief of staff for the AFL-CIO. “We promise not to fight the last war if he promises not to put the last version of the trade deal on the table.”

Even among Republicans, Obama’s task to win support for his trade pacts remains fraught. Some House conservatives said they are opposed to granting the president more unilateral authority in the wake of his executive action two weeks ago to defer the deportations of up to several million undocumented immigrants.

“They don’t want to give him power certainly with the [Environmental Protection Agency]. They don’t want to give him power on human rights. They don’t want to give him power on health care. Do they want to give him power on international trade?” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who has expressed concerns about the trade deals, said at the Council on Foreign Relations this week.

Brown said that Obama could face opposition from “an interesting coalition of sort of progressive Democrats and anti-Obama tea party Republicans.”

[Demeter]

38. Words Fail Me

Let's see...(rummages through thesarus)

idiot...no
jerk....well,
arrogant....close

miserable failure as a President of this great nation--toady for the Corporations

(throws book away)

words fail me.

[FiveGoodMen]

71. I think 'traitor' is the word you're looking for

Getting into the White House so he can sell America's sovereignty to the highest bidder.

Traitor
noun
1.a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
2.a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

[YoungDemCA]

124. Is this Free Republic?

Sheesh...

[rhett o rick]

49. He is Lucy with the football. Go ahead Charlie Brown, this time we are telling the truth. nm

[mmonk]

7. Benefits for whom? Guess I will stay "ignorant"

until I see proof and my question answered.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. The American workers ...

What impact do you think establishing a universal wage floor, standardized working conditions regulations and environmental regulations will have on the American work force?

[kentuck]

107. Yeah, now we compete with anyone in the world...

Cost of labor can no longer be an excuse.

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. Actually ...

If the administration's position is adopted, it will eliminate the excuse(s) for off-shoring work.

[fbc]

73. maybe it benefits the foreign slave labor?

[Aerows]

80. Do you have a more favorable

description?

[840high]

132. kick

[Autumn]

134. Now you did it

you hurt someones feeling. 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

[enlightenment]

11. Given that this thing has been

shrouded in secrecy since the outset, his remarks tread perilously close to "just trust me, plebs".

If opponents are ignorant of the benefits, it's because the proponents have been trying so very, very hard to keep everyone ignorant of the costs.

Mr. President, let us SEE the entire proposal. You're a lawyer - would you sign a complicated contract without reading it?

[progressoid]

28. Exactly. Let us see the proposal.

We've been screwed before by these laws written in secret.

[hollysmom]

36. exactl;y if we are ignorant of the proposal it is only because you have shrouded it

lots of secrets to save and hide. Why should we be suspicious - ignorant people trust every one, I am not ignorant.

[Populist_Prole]

12. AAAaaaarrrrgggghhhh!

That's the same smug tone Clinton used to sell NAFTA. Even then, their arguments were an insult to a cretin, let alone to anyone that followed cause-and-effect dynamics on the issue.

I think they know damned well they're full of shit. I mean, what else can they say at this point? "Fuck you, you're getting this"?

It's just plausible deniability for them for knowingly harming the working class.

[NewDeal_Dem]

14. +100

[FiveGoodMen]

74. 'what else can they say at this point? "Fuck you, you're getting this"?'

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they're saying.

[NewDeal_Dem]

13. so tell us what's in the trade deal obama, maybe we wouldn't be so ignorant if we knew what was

in the secret, undemocratic agreement.

[Demeter]

39. Point! a palpable hit, to go all Wm. Shakespeare

[SamKnause]

16. Liar for the 1%ers.

The 1%ers will get their TPP.

The 'government' is not interested in what the people need.

The global corporations are not interested in what the people need.

The CEOs are not interested in what the people need.

The interests of the 1% are not the interests of the people.

The 1% have the best 'government' their money can buy.

The global corporations have the best 'government' their money can buy.

The needs of the 99% are continually ignored.

I have zero respect for liars, cons, and shysters.

[treestar]

17. Do you think he's purposely doing that?

He thinks this will be good for the economy, about which you could disagree, but instead of doing that you accuse him of purposely wanting Americans to lose their jobs.

[mmonk]

20. Are you putting words in someone's mouth?

Or thoughts in someone's head?

[treestar]

21. The OP did that regarding Obama.

The OP expects us to accept their conclusions about the TPP wholesale.

[mmonk]

30. I would agree he is worried.

Probably due to the results of all of the other ones. There's not much left in America to hollow out for the transnationals for the money. At some time, the discontent will rise to intolerable levels and then who or what will be blamed?

[djean111]

25. I see him as believing the American economy is just about the 1%, Wall Street, Dow Jones,

corporate profits. I do not think "workers" are all that important to him. Plus, workers are easily fobbed off with low-cost social and civil concessions. As if economic gains for workers cannot happen with social gains. And so many buy that, it is pathetic.

[treestar]

115. I respectfully disagree

Never got that attitude from the President.

Now he may think the banks and corporations and insurance companies are part of the economy as opposed to thinking they should all be destroyed/nationalized immediately, and the workers would suffer from such up-rooting.

[aspirant]

117. With Obama

a few social loolipops, then a financial hammer and the scheme continues.

Totally agree

[sabrina 1]

27. Here's what he's doing. He's calling those who oppose it 'ignorant'. Here's how he can

fix that, make this Secret Deal available, first to Congress who have been denied access to it, THEN to the people.

Once we all see what is in it, we won't be so IGNORANT. We HAVE seen some of what's in it thanks to Wikileaks, no thanks to our leaders who have tried hard to hide it from both Congress and the people.

So he is claiming to know what's good for us, while we don't need to do anything other than 'trust him'.

Sorry, democracies don't work in secret with people just 'trusting' their leaders.

[aspirant]

118. I thought

"We the People" were the employer and Obama the employee.

[progressoid]

32. If it's so great, he could release the proposed agreement for all to see.

I know, I know, chess and all that.

But the problem is that secrecy breeds suspicion. And we have a reason to be suspicious. Historically these laws written in secret have screwed the general public. Fool us once shame on...etc.

[salib]

64. It is not just suspicion. Secrecy is inherently undemocratic.

And should be seen as Un-Democratic (party).

Simply. Wrong.

[treestar]

116. You are right, though it can't be secret in the end

It will have to go through Congress.

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. Insulting AND condescending. A twofer.

[hughee99]

24. Ignorant of the benefits? How about ignorant of the specifics!

Mr. President, if it's so good, and you want us to understand the benefits, just show us what's in the agreement BEFORE you try to push it through congress.

[Buns_of_Fire]

41. Sorry, no can do. You see, we're ignorant and wouldn't understand

all them fancy words and cipherin'. After all, his own CoS thought liberals were retarded, and he surrounded himself with economic geenyuses like Geithner and Summers.

Considering the caliber of people the President chooses to surround himself with, a condescending attitude towards The Great Unwashed is bound to display itself from time to time.

[rhett o rick]

62. Exactly. Teach us ignorant peons just how beneficial this agreement will be.

See this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12772221

[99Forever]

29. Please explain to me again. ...

.... about how much worse the Republicans are.

[Lifelong Protester]

31. Why does it have to be in secret?

And which goods, that we are to be shipping overseas, will it help?

[pampango]

46. Probably for the same reason the climate agreement with China, the diplomatic agreement with Cuba,

the negotiations with Iran and most other international agreements are done in secret until they are completed and submitted for ratification.

Woodrow Wilson's "open covenants, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view" has never caught on in international negotiations even if we wish it would have, as I do.

[aspirant]

122. "Submitted for ratification"

Fast track with no amendments, is this your idea of Democracy?

[Vinca]

34. People who have seen their jobs moved to China are not ignorant of anything.

[Sunlei]

43. what jobs moved to china in the past 8-10 years?

[hughee99]

55. If they said India, would it have made any difference to you? n/t

[Sunlei]

66. IT management jobs you mean or businesses that offer customer service(by phone)?

I am ignorant of what jobs you meant.

[hughee99]

72. The post you replied to (not mine) mentioned jobs offshored to China,

and the challenge you replied with seemed to indicate that you didn't believe jobs had been shipped to China in the last 10 or so years (in significant numbers). While I don't know much about jobs in China, I think it's safe to say that the number of jobs in India have increased dramatically over the last decade (whether it's IT management. R & D, or customer service), and they're the sort of jobs that used be done in the US.

[Sunlei]

83. No, I agree with what President O said about 'offshoring' in that article.

majority of job loss happened over 10-30/40 or so years ago when the backbone of America, (small businesses) got walmarted. When many businesses got 'stapled' by the romneys type businessmen. also

Also quite a few of our major American corps like cars, major appliances all started being built with $7 a day Mexican border labor and then shipped back for Americans to buy.

Garment manufacturing went overseas the earliest was almost first 'jobs' to leave the USA. a long time ago.

[hughee99]

102. Yes, and while the president is right that "that horse is out of the barn" on low wage labor,

that's no reason to throw the barn doors wide open to let the rest of the horses out too.

What I saw in the article was a good bit of discussion about how Wall Street and Congress are going to lobby hard to the people who are supposed to represent the people to do something that their constituents don't want, and that the president is suggesting that the people (in general) simply don't understand why this is a good deal for them.

What I didn't see was any real effort to explain WHY this is a good deal for the American people OR a promise to let the American people see what the TPP actually is. "You don't understand it, but it's good for you, take my word for it" frankly isn't going to cut it anymore, especially when Wall Street and big corporations are pushing for it and we all know they don't have "the peoples" best interests at heart.

And as far as arguing about how "international trade" is good, that's just smoke and mirrors. Sure, international trade is good, but what is the price? What are we getting and what are we giving up? Without those answers (which are INTENTIONALLY being kept from us, which should raise a whole bunch of red flags), discussing the benefits of some generic "international trade" doesn't really mean a whole lot.

[Aerows]

82. Is that

really the line of defense you are going with?

Really?

[Sunlei]

87. discussion. I read the article and noted Pres. Os audience for the 'meeting'.

Happy New Year!

[Aerows]

91. He's going to need folks

that are still starry-eyed for this to be anything but maligned. I hope you have a lot of hearts and flowers, my dear.

[Sunlei]

95. It still may suck as the Corps have owned the USA forever & plenty of Politicians lie to Pres. O.

Corps are out to screw the little people, 'profits first'.

But I trust him to do the right thing as much as he can for 'the people' . I do NOT want America to 'quit' this trade agreement and lose all the economic benefits of trade with that part of the world.
The USA could just walk away and the trade agreement would go on without us.

[Aerows]

99. Either President Obama is the most brilliant

and foresight blessed man in history, or corporations can outsmart him.

You can't have it both ways, my dear. The USA NEEDS to walk the hell away from this, despite the fact that it will hem in every other dumb nation that signs onto it.

You are telling me that now President Obama was BS'd by corporations. Uh uh. No.

Stupidity isn't often a choice, but when it is, choosing to be stupid reaps a LOT of financial benefits.

Exhibit A. Wall Street bailout. "No one could have foreseen" and so forth.

[Vinca]

119. The correct question is . . . what jobs haven't?

If not China then India, Pakistan, Mexico, Turkmenistan . . . need I go on? Walk into any Walmart and try to buy a piece of clothing made in America. I just purchased a dryer billed as "Made In the USA." Not quite. "Assembled in the USA." That means the parts came from somewhere else. My biggest surprise re the current trade agreement is that we still have any kind of job that can be outsourced beyond hamburger flipper and undertaker. I'm sure if they could figure out a way to quickly pack dead granny off to a lab in Asia for "processing" on the cheap they would. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

[Sunlei]

37. The "All or Nothing" people *are* ignorant of the benefits of trade. But it does make good anti-O

media, imagine if President Obama called them stupid. That would be headline material in todays 'media'.

[Aerows]

85. Weren't you one of the

"Perfect is the enemy of the good" folks?

Well now we get to reap what you sowed.

[Sunlei]

88. sorry, I don't understand what you meant

[Aerows]

93. Yes, I get that.

I truly know that now.

[Sunlei]

96. You're to kind, :P

back to work for me, have a good day!

[Odin2005]

143. Horseshit.

[bahrbearian]

42. Please proceed Mister president

tell us what are the benefits.

[Sunlei]

50. to long to answer, with a line or two "benefits of global trade"

"benefits of global trade"

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=benefits+of+global+trade

[liberal_at_heart]

136. My husband's grandfather had a cattle business that was destroyed by NAFTA.

The goal of global trade is to bring wages in industrialized nations down to the same level as developing countries, and I will never support it.

[closeupready]

44. Um, I'll trust the AFL-CIO before him on trade policy.

Thanks anyway.

[Sunlei]

90. AFL CIO are not against this new trade agreement, they're working with the group. Heres a link

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP

[PoliticAverse]

120. On the TPP: "the publicly available information is concerning for workers"

From your linked page:

Global businesses that reap the benefits of U.S. trade policy want the TPP to look like prior “free trade agreements” as much as possible. And while negotiations are not yet complete, the publicly available information is concerning for workers: it looks as if, once again, the global corporations are having too much influence in the process. And working families may once again get left behind.

[Sunlei]

133. yes, it is "concerning for workers" that's why I think its a good thing both Unions are active stake

active stake holders in the negotiations.

[jwirr]

47. Okay. Fine then release the document so all of us can read it. And IF there are any benefits for

the US workers let us see for ourselves. We are not ignorant and we will not be sold out again.

[pa28]

48. To make it even more special he said it while sitting next to Jim McNerney

Jim McNerney. He's the notoriously anti-labor CEO who demanded huge concessions from the Boeing machinists union during one of the most broadly profitable times in the company's history.

He's the one who referred to his employees as "cowering" as long as he held the job.

That Jim McNerney

[former9thward]

51. I think by the last war he means NAFTA.

And he is right, we lost that. Do we just move on? Maybe. Since NAFTA globalism has marched on and I have a feeling it no longer can be stopped.

[Demeter]

97. Anything can be stopped

It's starting something good that's difficult. Thieves rush in where good people are afraid to try.

[aspirant]

123. Move on from the last war

Isn't this the same as look forward, not behind with the war criminals

This is starting to get old.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. Sorry Mr. President, you are tragically wrong about TPP.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Yes he is and it's a damn shame.

[whereisjustice]

53. the blue dogs are leaving big red turds behind... TPP is the biggest fuck you to workers

in several generations. US workers refuse to go back to the sweatshops and 80 weeks of the 1900s, therefore Democrats AND Republicans are determined to find someone who will.

Count depressed wages, a broken education system, lost taxes, rotting infrastructure and outrageous CEO salaries as a product of our desire to build up the infrastructure Asia on the backs of US workers.

Obama should be ashamed of this just as he should be ashamed of lauding torturers as patriots.

We were right about NAFTA, we were right about banking deregulation and Wall Street corruption.

We are right about TPP.

TPP is a gigantic FUCK YOU to the American worker. Obama has decided our quality of life is still too good in the US.

Until we are all living in cardboard shacks, the neo-liberals like Obama and Hillary won't be happy.

If anyone needs to shut the fuck up already about how great it is sending jobs to Asia, it is Obama.

[Trillo]

58. Return to tariffs?

U.S. Imposes Steep Tariffs on Chinese Solar Panels

[Maedhros]

59. Mr. President, we're not stupid. We ARE aware of the benefits of the TPP.

It's just that we're aware that the benefits are going to the hoarders of wealth at the top of our income scale, and will be paid for with the blood, sweat and tears of the rest of us.

Those of us that are actually Liberal prefer trade agreements that boost the Working Class.

[Faryn Balyncd]

103. Absolutely. This monstronsity of corporate welfare is not about trade, & will not benefit Americans,

other than the plutocrats that wrote the secret provisions.


This is perhaps the worst piece of corporatist legislation that has ever been pushed by an elected Democrat.

[TheKentuckian]

60. "Globalization won't be a bloodless process" and the corporations will need more of your's now

sit down, shut up, and make a donation early and often.

[EndElectoral]

67. Would like to see Obama actually address Sen. Sanders 10 points against the TPP!

[Bluenorthwest]

69. The whole thing is secret, so if it is so beneficial why not explain that by showing the deal?

The way they sneak about doing furtive, secretive planning makes them look as if they are up to crap so awful that if they told us what it was we'd never accept it. It's very shitty of Obama to both refuse to say what's in it and call people ignorant for not knowing what's in it.
Clearly he's ashamed of the contents and hoping to shove it into law without anyone knowing what is in it.
I remember when Obama sermonized about the need for transparency. This is why we need transparency.

[JDPriestly]

70. And pensions were stolen as companies were bought, gutted out and e-mailed to China

with absolutely no compensation for the lost jobs, opportunities and ruined lives in America.

A few bandits made out. Those who profited are no better than the guys who robbed stagecoaches and stole cattle in the early days of the Wild West. Just bandits.

[Sunlei]

77. He did not call 'you' ignorant

[Aerows]

89. If you think that calling anyone with

the intelligence above a Q-tip isn't calling them "ignorant" for seeing right through clear BS or attempting some patronizing pablum to sate said near Q-tip IQ folks, then perhaps you have a point.

I have an IQ and memory above that of a fruit fly, so I call it as I see it. Notably, I remember the ramifications of NAFTA. Oops, there goes that memory of mine again, remembering things that make me "ignorant" because I look past how handsome and charismatic President Obama is. Silly me and everyone else with a memory.

[Jack Rabbit]

84. It doesn't matter if Obama said that or not

Last edited Fri Jan 2, 2015, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)

The "last war" is not over and won't be until free trade agreements are swept into the dust bin of history and democracy is restored and established throughout the world.

We will not obey. They can pass the TPP, but we will not obey.

[Brigid]

92. Sorry, Mr. President, but no sale.

I got hosed supporting the last trade deal, and I am not interested in making the same mistake again.

[Autumn]

101. I defended Bill Clinton to the bitter end on NATA because I KNEW a democrat would defend us

and not sell us out. Boy was I an idiot.

[hedda_foil]

138. Me too, Autumn. To my everlasting shame, me too.

Never again.

[Puglover]

144. That was pretty much the end

of my wide eyed crush on the Democratic Party.

Clinton did some great things and other things that fucked a great many Americans.

I think he and Obama are pretty much of the same ilk.

Obama has done some great things. However the TPP will (if passed) be a huge blemish on his presidency.

[gregcrawford]

94. Goldman Sachs' pet president

Well, all you TPP defenders, if we're all so ignorant of the benefits, why don't you just TELL us what's so wonderful instead of saying, "Just trust me"? Because the only stuff that's been leaked out of your super-secret negotiations is malignant treachery on a scale I've never seen before, and I've been keeping a close eye on D.C. shenanigans for fifty fuckin' years!

I've been trying to warn people about this so-called "trade deal" for a few years now, but at least people are starting to listen. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a corporate coup d'etat. It means the death of representative democracy and the rule of law. Corporations would be immune from prosecution for even the most heinous of crimes, and could sue countries for passing laws that MIGHT affect future profits. Such suits would be adjudicated in corporate tribunals by corporate lawyers, and there would be ZERO avenues of appeal. It is treason on the grandest scale ever conceived by the minds of evil men, and Obama wants to fast-track this abortion without debate or amendments.

And he has the gall to call us IGNORANT? Tell your congressmen/women, and your senators to just say NO to the TPP! Do not dither; do it NOW!

[JDPriestly]

98. Obama is just plain WRONG about America's readiness to enter into these trade agreements.

Obama, Hillary, most of the people who negotiate these trade agreements on behalf of the US have never actually lived for any protracted period within the economy and culture of any country that is succeeding in trading in the world and keeping a positive trade balance.

I have. I have lived in Germany and Austria among other countries and not with American pay but on the economies of the countries I have lived in.

America is not ready for free trade. Countries like Austria and Germany that can compete in international trade are organized. Their economies are not rigidly planned but they have a sense of national direction with regard to economic, industrial and environmental development.

On the economic side, I recall when we lived in Austria, a small country with a relatively well trained, well educated workforce. The news media wrote and pundits and intellectuals discussed the challenges that would face Austria in a world economy. This was maybe 30 years ago. The consensus at that time (and it was correct) that Austria should focus on developing technical capacity that would allow its industry to produce on a small scale special products that would be needed. Austria developed a national strategy for dealing with free trade. Has the United States anything of that sort? Have we even ever, as a nation, discussed or thought about what our niche or role might be in an international economy? If so, I who watch the news pretty carefully, completely missed it.

The workers in developed nations that are showing positive trade balances are trained and educated. They enjoy universal health care and secure pensions. There is a sense of confidence in the nation's ability to take care of its people while competing in the world. These nations view training and education as a national duty to the generations to come. In Austria we enjoyed universal half-day kindergarten (meaning per-school in the US) starting at the age of three. Children were prepared to start first grade. The task of preparing a child for life was not left to the haphazard abilities of a mother who could be troubled by anything from health problems to alcoholism to drug addiction. Working mothers did not have to worry about whether their child would be challenged and assisted to grow up in the important pre-school years. A higher education in Germany is harder to qualify and prepare for (or at least was when I lived there) but does not throw the educated person into years and years of debt.

As a result of the better organized society and the sense of shared obligation on the part of the body politic for the well being of members of their society, the industrialized countries that are maintaining their standards of living in spite of "free" trade (countries that include Sweden for example), countries that have a national strategy for competing in world trade are not just strong in terms of fighting the rest of the world but within them in terms of security within their countries. They do not have the problem with police brutality, for example, that we have. It isn't "us against them; fend for yourself" in the countries that are prepared to compete in the world economy.

I could say a lot more but my point is that we are entering into trade agreements like the Three Stooges entered into haunted castles. We have no national direction. We are just laying ourselves open to be battered and find ourselves in bed with the wrong partners. We are setting ourselves up to be victimized.

As for the advantages of free trade, the American trade balance speaks for itself. It's criminally high.

I know a lot of rich people will make out like bandits with the TPP. But that is what they are bandits.

I say this as one who has lived in the world. The TPP will ruin America. We are not prepared for it. We are a nation as divided as at any time since the Civil War. I seriously doubt that America as a nation will survive if we enter into yet another trade agreement. And as I understand it the TPP is only one of the trade agreements being negotiated and agreed to at this time.

It would be best for us to amend the trade agreements we have and focus on trying to have a national economic strategy -- not a rigid plan or anything approaching a rigid plan -- but a national strategy. And before we get into these international trade agreements, at the very least, we need to have a consistent national tax policy that ends the destructive practice of allowing one state or on town or one county to give tax breaks to lure companies to establish plants or businesses in their area. We don't even have one national industrial policy and we are entering into these trade agreements. We will end up a fractured, seriously divided country with one part of the country competing against the other.

These trade agreements pose a great threat to our national security -- greater than terrorism quite possibly. We just are not united enough as a country when it comes to our economy to be entering into trade agreements with other countries. We first need to come together about our economic future here before we lay ourselves open to the products and competition from countries far better organized in this area than we are.

We don't live in the late 19th or mid-20th centuries any more. We need to wake up and smell the smokestacks.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-he-willing-to-defy-democrats-on-his-support-of-trans-pacific-partnership/2014/12/03/25edcaf4-7b30-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.htmlwr]

[Munificence]

139. You said

and I will only comment on this statement:

"Have we even ever, as a nation, discussed or thought about what our niche or role might be in an international economy? If so, I who watch the news pretty carefully, completely missed it."

Well we have not came out and stated it, but if you have failed to notice, our roll present day and moving forward is as the world police/military force.

That is the niche that we are filling.

[sadoldgirl]

100. So, Mr. President, we would be far

less ignorant, if the agreements were published. You cannot blame us
for being upset about it, after our experience with NAFTA.

Also, Sir, I did not vote for you as the President for the WTO,
just for the USA, which you swore to protect, or did you not?

[DeSwiss]

104. Well he's gone FULL 1%ER!!!

You dumb fucks!!! You don't understand shit!!!

- Bend over and take ''it'' like a wo/man and let me stick my free trade where it belongs!!!!







Muhammad Ali Predicts Obama Presidency in 1971

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. They ALWAYS play the false choice game....

Either you are for us or you are with the terrorists

Either you are for this deal or you are against the entire concept of trade between nations.

[Broward]

109. Let's remember, he's politically free now.

Free to screw over the vast majority of Americans and the people that helped get him elected.

[hughee99]

110. Don't think of it as "free to screw over the people who got him his current job" but rather

as "free to help out the people who will make him very wealthy in his next job". It stings a little less when at least it sounds like he's thinking about SOMEONE'S future.

[SomethingFishy]

125. Well, the Democrats, when they come up one short for

phone banking, canvassing and donations in 2016, would be smart to remember that this "ignorant, sanctimonious, fringe lunatic who needs drug counseling" who was there for them in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 decided that giving money and time to people who think so little of him is a colossal fucking waste.

[Hekate]

137. For starters, what IS the exact quote? That would help.

[d_b]

141. We gambled on him

and we lost.

We should be preparing for 2016.

[Odin2005]

142. Fuck you, too, Mr. President.