"Obama to Double Down on Fast Track Push Following SOTU"--Here We Go Again...

[KoKo]

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Obama to Double Down on Fast Track Push Following SOTU

The president is tasking every member of his Cabinet to round up votes from Democrats for fast-track negotiating power
by
Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

"The president seems committed to doubling down on the failed policies of the past: pushing for fast-track trade authority to help negotiate major treaties with Asian and European allies," Robert Borosage argues.

Following Tuesday's State of the Union address, in which he is expected to call on Congress to grant him greater leeway to negotiate a pair of corporate-friendly trade deals with Europe and Asia, President Barack Obama will enlist his Cabinet members to push for Fast Track trade authority on Capitol Hill.

Fast Track would speed along passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a pact involving the U.S. and 11 Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a proposed deal between the European Union and the U.S. Both agreements have been criticized for the secrecy in which they are being developed, as well as their potentially negative impacts on jobs, wages, food safety, workers' rights, and public health.

According to The Hill:

President Obama is tasking every member of his Cabinet to round up votes from Democrats for fast-track negotiating power, which would give Obama leverage to complete trade negotiations by preventing Congress from amending his agreements.

About 80 House Democrats have been targeted in the effort, and Cabinet members are divvying up those names based on their personal relationships with the members.

The rest of the House Democratic Caucus, which consists of about 100 members, are seen as likely "no" votes.

Opposition also exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum. "Unabashed liberals Rosa DeLauro and Keith Ellison are finding themselves taking sides with tea party-backed Republicans Walter Jones and Duncan Hunter in the fight against a common enemy—the White House’s GOP-backed trade agenda," Adam Behsudi writes Tuesday for Politico.

Behsudi explains:

"Tea party and other conservatives oppose the legislation because they say it would cede Congress’ constitutional authority over trade to a White House they don’t trust. Progressives, backed by labor and environmental groups, say the bill will only make it easier to strike new trade deals that would send U.S. jobs to countries with deficient labor and environment standards."

Part of the White House strategy is to suggest that Fast Track authority would in fact help progressive groups achieve their goals.

For The Hill, Vicki Needham reports:

National Economic Council Director Jeff Zients is organizing the Cabinet outreach and assigning different Cabinet members to different tasks. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, for example, is expected to discuss wildlife trafficking and overfishing issues.

...One argument the Cabinet officials are making is that the U.S. will be sidelined from writing rules on trade that would protect labor groups and the environment if they don’t back fast-track and the TPP.]/i]

But such arguments are unlikely to be persuasive. In the hours leading up to the State of the Union, progressives on Twitter called on Obama and elected officials to reject Fast Track and so-called "free trade" deals in general.

What remains to be seen is whether such grassroots resistance, as well as bipartisan opposition in Congress, can defeat corporate support for Fast Track and the trade deals.

"The president seems committed to doubling down on the failed policies of the past: pushing for fast-track trade authority to help negotiate major treaties with Asian and European allies," Robert Borosage argues in an op-ed published Tuesday. "Here he will seek to enlist Republican majorities against the vast majority of his own party in Congress, with the aid of a mobilized corporate lobby. Bipartisan cooperation with this Republican leadership will be a good measure of the power of the corporate and bank lobbies."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/20/obama-double-down-fast-track-push-following-sotu

[grasswire]

1. disgusting nt

[nationalize the fed]

2. Judging from the past,

which is the most reliable way to judge something (See: Credit Reports) this is a done deal. Because Washington DC gets what it wants. Look at how the Nation has been looted. >$2000 per second on just the wars. $20,000 gone in TEN SECONDS.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/

What remains to be seen is whether such grassroots resistance, as well as bipartisan opposition in Congress, can defeat corporate support for Fast Track and the trade deals

ROFL

"Here he will seek to enlist Republican majorities against the vast majority of his own party in Congress, with the aid of a mobilized corporate lobby. Bipartisan cooperation with this Republican leadership will be a good measure of the power of the corporate and bank lobbies."

Buy Partisan. Americans won't complain too loudly though.

Sacrifice Jobs, Money and Liberties. The New American Century is here.

Too bad there's no Sir James around to fight for the clueless

A prophetic interview with Sir James Goldsmith in 1994 Pt1. Watch Sir James fly swat the despicable Laura D'Andrea Tyson.

[KoKo]

3. Thank You for this post. I heard Sir Goldmith give that interview when it happened....

It's well worth the watch these many years later.

What I can't understand is this from the article:

Part of the White House strategy is to suggest that Fast Track authority would in fact help progressive groups achieve their goals.

How the heck can "Fast Track for TPP" be "Progressive Goals?" Have they lost their minds or are they trying to reframe whata "Progressive" Goal is now that "Progressive Populists" are supporting Warren and Sanders and to combat the DLC/Third Way/NeoLib Agenda? Unbelievable!

Anyway Recommend your post ....hope people will give it a read and watch Goldsmith.

[nationalize the fed]

14. "How the heck can "Fast Track for TPP" be "Progressive Goals?"

You're talking about someone who managed to convince his "base" that passing a Heritage Foundation Right Wing Mandatory Corporate Insurance law was in their interest. Even after campaigning on "No Mandates" and who promised a Public Option

Thanks for the rec, I hope this post doesn't make you re-consider.

Thank You for keeping the TPP on the TOP

[Marr]

4. It would be disgusting enough if it was just what it looks like.

But I expect even that cynical reading isn't cynical enough.

The Democratic Party's corporate establishment wants to push this thing-- not just the president. But since he's a lame duck anyway, they can officially oppose it *and* see it pass by arranging the chairs just so.

I'd love to be surprised, but I have no doubt that we'll see jack shit in the way of opposition from most of our representatives.

[stillwaiting]

13. The TPP is so nasty that they will most likely pass it with bi-partisan support.

There will be some Republicans who vote against it as they lambast it as Obama-trade.

And, there will be some progressive Democrats (and some pretenders who can safely vote against it) who also vote against it.

We need a long-lasting movement to clean up the Democratic Senate. A very, very long one (a decade or more).

[pa28]

6. What a great interview. He identified the major cause and effect of our current inequality crisis.

Funny watching Charlie Rose smugly declare NAFTA a success two months after it's implementation and then watch Sir James reaction as he realizes he's dealing with a gormless idiot.

[rhett o rick]

5. I have written my Senators twice on this issue. Both send me rhetoric crap in their responses.

Here is the final paragraph from Sen Cantwell:

With an active and fair trade policy, I am confident that Washington State will continue to benefit from an increasingly integrated role in the international economy. I look forward to working to expand educational and job-training opportunities to enable our workforce, including workers displaced by trade, to meet the challenges of the global economy. I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on a trade agenda that best meets the needs of all Washingtonians.

Washington state will benefit. Who in Washington state? In her first response she said Washington state industries will benefit. That's swell but will those industries pass the benefits along to workers? I think Sen Cantwell is a closet "trickle-downer".

She did not address Fast Track nor any of the issues other than trade.

She intimated that some of our workforce may need retraining "to meet the challenges of the global economy". The corporations are not going to be the ones paying for "retraining", the taxpayers will.

[KoKo]

17. In meeting with my long time "wired in" House Rep

where 5 Dem Interest/Labor/Legal, etc met with him (This was headed by Communications Workers of America, Food & Water Watch, AfL-CIO, Postal Union Workers of America, Common Cause, Alliance for Retired Citizens) and a couple more I can't remember now.

They met with David Price of NC who is considered a Liberal Darling here in NC. These are groups with thousands who have signed petitions, paid for Lobbyists up on "the Hill" and been vocal about the TPP for years.

Price said that the "Current Face Track is Flawed" but would have to be used because you cannot have changes to a Trade Agreement argued on the House Floor. (??????) But, be assured that he will make every effort to make sure that Worker Rights and Environmental Laws, Food Safety would be protected in the TPP. (?????)

The groups there were NOT PLEASED. Meaning Price (a long time So-Called Lib Dem) has caved on it. WHY is what I wonder because he doesn't live a High Life.....and is long time "old Dem." But, he has disappointed us in the past 14 years by holding Town Meetings where he always listens to us...but, his answer is always "We can put fixes into this legislation after it passes." That has not happened.

So...if anyone here is represented by David Price....be sure to make your opposition to the TPP KNOWN. But, believe me, he's probably not going to do much about it because obviously...even the Non-Dino Dems want the TPP Passed.

That he had big organization Reps there and he still supports the TPP with "fixes" is all one needs to know.

[rhett o rick]

18. Does the definition of "Trade Agreement" include all of the side issues they are

cramming in?

[KoKo]

19. All we know is what Wikileaks has revealed because its still secret and "Fast Track"

means it gives the President authority sign it without any discussion by House Senate. Senate will vote and Obama signs....and then we find out the rest of the hidden details.

Calling it a "Trade Agreement" as Obama did last night doesn't really get into what it really is from the few leaks....and we won't know the rest of the ugly stuff in there until it has already been passsed. Then it will be too late.

[pa28]

7. Well boys. It's feet to the fire time again.

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. That's our job.

Thanks.

[woo me with science]

42. Revolting that it is constantly our job with a Democratic President. nt

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Absolutely nothing else he ever does will make up for this.

No blue links, please.

We know he's helping the other side.

[whathehell]

15. +10 n/t

[George II]

10. Is there any first hand administration source for any of this?

[KoKo]

20. Well he mentioned his support for it in his SOTU speech last night..

What more would you want?

[George II]

21. All I heard (and this is now from the transcript), was:

"That's why I'm asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren't just free, but fair."

That's not what people around here are talking about.

[KoKo]

25. What did that sentence mean to you?

"That's why I'm asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren't just free, but fair."

What do you think Obama means by "I'm asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority...with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe...

That's code word for "Fast Track" authority which means Senate does the vote without even seeing what's in the Trade Agreement and they have no ability to discuss or revise the agreement because it gives the President total authority.

[George II]

26. You left out part of the sentence:

"...give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers"

[djean111]

29. "to protect American workers" - that's the bullshit part, right there.

Investor States only protect themselves, at the expense of the workers.

[George II]

30. Whatever - I don't subscribe to the "pick and choose" philosophy.

[djean111]

31. I am not picking and choosing - I am saying the whole thing is a corporate coup.

You picked a sentence. I pointed out the BS.
Corporations will now be ascendant over sovereign states. They can kill, weaken or sue over any law or regulation that they feel affects their profits. Banks, environmental laws. This is why Rand Paul loves these trade agreements - it is the libertarian goal to do away with all rules and regulations.

[pampango]

27. "... "Fast Track" authority which means Senate does the vote without even seeing what's in the Trade

Agreement and they have no ability to discuss or revise the agreement because it gives the President total authority."

Where did you get that from? If you have a source for that interpretation of 'fast track' I would love to see it.

From my understanding of 'fast track' you are right about one thing. Like any international agreement negotiated by any administration it will submitted to congress for ratification, it cannot be amended - just ratified or rejected. (That will be true of the Iranian negotiations as well, though congress is trying to insert itself in those negotiations.)

However, it is not just the "Senate" that votes on this. It is both houses of congress. And congress does not have to vote on trade agreement "without even seeing what is in" it. Nor does congress have "no ability to discuss" the trade agreement.

[KoKo]

33. Here....Explains better than my quick post:

Last edited Wed Jan 21, 2015, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.adaction.org/pages/issues/all-policy-resolutions/economic-energy-amp-env/379-fast-trackpresidential-trade-promotion-authority-is-this-democracy.php

Adopted 2007

“Fast Track” or “Presidential Trade Promotion Authority” is a mechanism by which Congress gives the executive branch the right to dictate trade policy and formulate trade agreements. Under FastTrack, the president and the USTR (United States Trade Representative) have the power to select our trading partner nation(s), negotiate a trade agreement, then submit the agreement to Congress for a simple 'up' or 'down' vote. Discussion time is limited to 60 days. No amendments are permitted. Therefore, under Fast Track, our representatives in Congress have virtually no say concerning trade policy and the contents or language of trade agreements.

Fast Track was introduced by the Nixon administration in 1974. President Clinton used Fast Track to speed NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) through Congress in 1993. The process was re-christened “Presidential Trade Promotion Authority” by the George W. Bush administration. Through a process of misrepresentation of consequences and unconscionable railroading through Congress, the Bush Administration succeeded in having Fast Track renewed in 2001. George W. Bush used it to pass CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) in 2005, as well as several other less contentious deals.

Global trade agreements do not simply regulate the exchange of goods; they increasingly facilitate international corporate investment. Agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA have functioned to increase the power and profits of corporations, to the detriment of workers’ livelihood and environmental sustainability. Trade agreements negotiated during the past two decades include control over services (such as provision of natural resources), over laws passed at the local and state levels (such as living wage laws, or environmental protections) and over intellectual property rights (including distribution of generic pharmaceuticals). Simply stated: trade agreements reach into all aspects of our lives and those of the populations of our trading partner nations.

Trade agreements can be written and negotiated to raise living standards for workers and to enforce environmental protections vital to survival of the planet. The evidence is clear that, acting on its own, the administration will continue to craft trade agreements that benefit corporate investors instead.

(see ADA Resolutions #350, #371 & #378 for further details on global trade)

Fast Track will expire at the end of June, 2007, and Congress again will be asked to authorize the Bush administration to choose our trading partners, negotiate the agreements without transparency, then present them to Congress for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote. It is the position of ADA that it is inappropriate for any president to request or be granted Fast Track authority. The process constitutes an abrogation of power and responsibility by the people’s elected representatives in Congress. Democracy requires checks and balances by the branches of government. Fast Track is not democracy.

http://www.adaction.org/pages/issues/all-policy-resolutions/economic-energy-amp-env/379-fast-trackpresidential-trade-promotion-authority-is-this-democracy.php

[pampango]

35. "Trade agreements can be written and negotiated to raise living standards for workers and to enforce

environmental protections vital to survival of the planet."

I agree with that assessment. Indeed that is the only argument that the TPP is at all defensible. None of us has seen the chapters on labor rights and environmental protection because they have not been leaked. If those chapters are nonexistent, weak or unenforceable then TPP deserves to go down in flames.

I have often read that Obama believes that a trade policy that respects enforceable labor rights and environmental protections not only is a good thing on its merits but gives the US a competitive advantage with low-wage, environmentally lax countries that we do not have today. The low-wage countries now have that advantage.

Obama has these rights and protections included in his TPP objectives. Obviously, none of us know to what extent they will be reflected in the final agreement - assuming there ever is one. Those who don't trust him - be they tea partiers or some DUers - will of course 'know' that he will sell us out in the end. Indeed he might. But who will we ever trust to negotiate a trade agreement to be "written and negotiated to raise living standards for workers and to enforce environmental protections vital to survival of the planet"? If the answer is, "No one." then we really don't believe that government has a role to play in this.

BTW, the excerpt you posted did not allege that 'fast track' means that the "Senate does the vote without even seeing what's in the Trade Agreement and they have no ability to discuss or revise the agreement because it gives the President total authority."

[KoKo]

38. How do you know this as a fact since the trade agreement is secret except

for what we know from Wikileaks exposure of a few parts and that only certain members of Congress are allowed to go into the closed room to view the agreement as it's written and not take notes? If he manages to get "Fast Track" authority we won't know until the deal is signed by him exactly WHAT Obama has written into those "rights and protections" for workers.

How did NAFTA/CAFTA and the more recent SoKorean Trade Agreements work out for worker protections? Would you suggests that those Trade Agreements worked out well for average Americans. The TPP even goes further with it's give aways to major corporations and why is it being written in SECRET except for what Wikileaks managed to get out there which was challenging enough to make us wonder WHY a Trade Agreement would be negotiated in Secret with only a few in House & Senate (selected) to view and Corporation writing the Agreement.

Why should we trust?

Obama has these rights and protections included in his TPP objectives.

[pampango]

41. We don't. The negotiations are secret as most are. Republicans accused FDR of the same thing

with his trade negotiations in the 1930's. He was the first president to have the authority to pick trade negotiating partners, do the negotiating (in secret, for better or worse) then submit the finished agreements to congress for up-or-down votes. (They were all ratified - which pissed republicans off but congress was Democratic at that time.)

If he manages to get "Fast Track" authority we won't know until the deal is signed by him exactly WHAT Obama has written into those "rights and protections" for workers.

Even if 'fast track' is not passed, we won't know until the deal is signed what it in it. ('Fast track' has not been passed to date and we don't know what is in it.) There is no 'fast track' for the Iranian nuclear negotiations and we don't know what's going on there (other than that the republican majority in congress wants to screw it up). There was no 'fast track' for the China environmental or the Cuba diplomatic negotiations and we did not even know they existed until they were finished.

'Fast track' does not open up or close the negotiations. It just deals with the ratification process once an agreement is signed.

Why should we trust?

Perhaps you shouldn't. Perhaps Obama's goal at this point in life (or for his whole adult life?) is to screw us all and line his own pockets. (The republican base certainly believes that he is evil and that government can never be a change agent for the better. They oppose both the TPP, marginally, and 'fast track', massively.)

But as the Common Dreams article you posted above said:

"Trade agreements can be written and negotiated to raise living standards for workers and to enforce environmental protections vital to survival of the planet ..."

Who you gonna trust to do the writing and negotiating?

[KoKo]

44. But, the TPP is written by Corporations...Obama requests "Fast Track"

that's his input. We told worker's rights protections will be in there....but Obama promised to work to revise NAFTA to protect Worker's Rights and he hasn't because the cow was out of the barn and had run over the cliff since that opened the door to shipping our manufacturing overseas to China and anywhere else where workers could be abused with substandard working conditions and wages that kept them in poverty.

Have you actually read what was leaked by Wikileaks that the TPP contains? And, the rest we won't know about because it is secret and Fast Track means none of us will know until it's signed. A hand full of Senators/House Reps will see it but like the AUMF most won't even know what's in it and won't be able to negotiate any changes before or after it is signed because of the "Fast Track."

[pampango]

45. Do you think that China's growth would have been limited without NAFTA? 90% of China's trade is not

with the US. Trade with China is a bigger part of Germany's economy than it is of the US economy. Germany's unions and middle class are doing just fine. Our problems are internal not the fault of poor people in other countries. We can't blame our regressive taxes, little support for unions and an ineffective safety net on the Chinese or the Mexicans or the Kenyans or the Peruvians. The problem is much closer to home.

Obama promised to work to revise NAFTA to protect Worker's Rights and he hasn't ...

Assuming Obama really means to 'protect worker rights' covering them in TPP which includes Canada and Mexico would be one way to do it.

NAFTA to protect Worker's Rights and he hasn't because the cow was out of the barn and had run over the cliff since that opened the door to shipping our manufacturing overseas to China ...

NAFTA had nothing to do with China. Do you really think that China's growth would have been limited if the US and Canada had avoided a trade agreement with Mexico?

... and anywhere else where workers could be abused with substandard working conditions and wages that kept them in poverty.

"Trade agreements can be written and negotiated to raise living standards for workers and to enforce environmental protections vital to survival of the planet ..."

... the rest we won't know about because it is secret and Fast Track means none of us will know until it's signed.

No. 'Fast track' affects the ratification/rejection process, not the negotiating process.

"Fast Track means none of us will know until it's signed." Do you believe that denying 'fast track' means that we WILL know what's in it before it is signed? The negotiations have been going on in secret for years without 'fast track'. Why would the continuing lack of 'fast track' suddenly open up the negotiating process?

With 'fast track' the negotiations can be secret or they can be public. In the absence of 'fast track' the negotiations can be secret or they can be public.

IF we ever get a trade agreement that would "raise living standards for workers and to enforce environmental protections vital to survival of the planet ...", do you think it is likely that republican majorities in the House and Senate will not cut out precisely those provisions that "raise living standards for workers and to enforce environmental protections vital to survival of the planet ..." and leave in the stuff that corporations and the 1% like, if they are allowed to do so?

[nationalize the fed]

11. "Tea party and other conservatives oppose the legislation..."

The TPP was part of the 2012 Republican party platform, as well as the 2012 Democratic platform.

And if people think that the little twit Rand Paul is going to somehow save the opposition:

Rand Paul to Obama: Finish TPP Trade Deal



“Instead of just talking about a so-called ‘pivot to Asia,’ the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the” TPP.

By Zachary Keck October 28, 2014

U.S. Senator and Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul (R-KY) is calling on President Barack Obama to conclude negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) by year’s end.

Last week Senator Paul gave what his office billed as a major foreign policy address comprehensively outlining his “Conservative Realism” vision for American foreign policy.

One of the four main pillars of Conservative Realism, Paul explained, is reviving U.S. economic strength. “Our national power is a function of the national economy,” the first-term senator explained at a New York City dinner put on by the Center for the National Interest, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

Paul views increased trade as essential to reviving sluggish economic growth. The senator commended Obama’s predecessor on promoting trade, pointing out that the George W. Bush administration brokered 14 new free trade agreements during its eight years in office, and negotiated three others that were eventually ratified during the Obama administration. By contrast, Senator Paul noted, that Obama hasn’t successfully negotiated a single new agreement since taking office...
Complete article: http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/rand-paul-to-obama-finish-tpp-trade-deal/

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

Politics, the saying goes, makes strange bedfellows. In presidential politics, the cozy compromises with the unconstitutional seem even more unsettling.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a man whose personal popularity and political fortunes have increased in direct proportion to his spreading of his libertarian-leaning ideals, has now publicly embraced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an unprecedented sovereignty surrender masquerading as a multi-national trade pact...
>http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19439-rand-paul-to-obama-prioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership

[pampango]

28. The republican base does oppose the TPP and fast track. Their politicians don't care.

Democratic support for both treaties is stronger than that of Republicans: 60% of Democrats see TTIP as a good thing compared with 44% of Republicans, while 59% of Democrats look favorably on TPP compared with 49% of Republicans.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

[stillwaiting]

12. So much theater going on right now. It's bigger than a three-ring circus. nt

[woo me with science]

22. Yep. Let's talk about bread bags and pretend the Republicans are our only problem.

Let's NOT talk about what the past six years taught us: that corporate corruption and the corporate agenda are thoroughly bipartisan, the inevitable result of corporate money and power flooding Washington.

Let's ignore the fact that the very same, murderous, malignant, bipartisan, predatory corporate agenda of TPP, war for profit, and police state is STILL being shoved down our throat by our own Democratic president...with the support of both colluding corporate parties.

Let's pretend that we didn't learn we live in an oligarchy. Let's pretend that we still have a functioning democracy and that the only thing we have to do to fix/reverse the descent of millions of Americans into corporate-created poverty and despair is to hate the Red Team enough and work harder to get corporate Democrats back in!

[KoKo]

40. I know...the distractions thrown out there

while the real issues get little coverage here on DU.

Amazing though that there are other sources springing up with newer Action Groups and maybe the time of "Message Boards" is drawing to a close for discussion. Too much trolling and "eyes" monitoring to find ways to disrupt, diffuse or shut down discussions.

Sad that, I think. But, if more is achieved in other ways then maybe it's just part of a necessary transition. Still...I will miss having some of the information shared here through the years and some of the people who honestly care about discussion and working for change in a progressive orientated way.

[glasshouses]

16. .

[woo me with science]

23. And what's inside the package

is a revolting mockery of all the pretty populist advertisements.

We live in a vicious corporate propaganda state. We are being eaten alive by those pretending to represent us, while their insulting propaganda machine claims to have our back.

[Octafish]

24. Welfare for the Wealthy.

Austerity for the mopes.

[NCTraveler]

32. We have a serious problem in our party when it comes to the economy.

This is a problem that has been getting worse over a couple of decades. While I should have woken up earlier, it really hit home for me when the current administrations biggest touted accomplishment is a multi-billion/trillion dollar tax giveaway to some of the largest private corporations in the world. The fact it is very similar to the plan of my favored candidate in 2008 should have given me understanding earlier. This area of our parties new identity is why I am looking for someone other than Hillary in the primaries. Don't get me wrong, I will vote for Hillary with a huge smile in the general if she gets there.

I used the word "touted" above because I feel the Obama administration has some wonderful progressive accomplishments. But the ACA is the big accomplishment touted. I also feel the great progressive moves have very little to do fundamentally with the economy. Many progressive ideas mean little if one cannot feed their family. If the middle class is shrunk even further. If working 50 hours a week at any job wont cover the bills.

Pushing for the TPP just doesn't shock me today. Not after the celebration that has occurred after the passage of the ACA. Far too many have told the democrats in power how amazing it is to subsidize massive private companies that are turning enormous guaranteed profits. That, in itself, is the new direction of our party's ideology.

[woo me with science]

34. And the MIC wars for profit. And the growing police state

including mass surveillance; militarized police; the private prison industry; and persecution of protesters, whistleblowers, and journalists. And the corporate propaganda machine.

The Democratic Party is, like the Republican Party, financially wedded to, owned by, and beholden to the corrupt corporate interests that are systematically dismantling democracy in this country and replacing it with corporate authoritarian rule.

It is a systemic problem caused by corporate money flooding every aspect of our electoral and governmental process and restructuring our government to increase corporate power.

It is oligarchy masquerading as the democracy it has replaced.

[Howler]

36. K&R

K&R

[woo me with science]

37. KICK

[RiverLover]

39. Complete Corporate Control coming to a Country near you!

Corporate personhood becomes corporate nationhood.

[AzDar]

43. Ugh.

Barack needs to knock this shit off. He knows better...

[Populist_Prole]

46. Fast Track = "We can't pass this democratically and constitutionally"

They know. They know the will of the people doesn't matter anymore.

Slimy goddamned vipers, the lot of them.