only 12 dems voted for Obama's trAde agenda. That speaks volumes

[cali]

The President spent a lot of time and resources trying to get dems on board. The question is, why did he fail so badly? Fewer rethugs than predicted opposed it; in other words, the TPA passed because the racist tea party caucus, which hates his guts, voted got it.

It's a victory of sorts for the President, but only a partial one as the House and Senate versions have to be reconciled- and it comes at a real cost to him.

[Hoyt]

1. It speaks politics. Enough will vote for the TPA to pass. Others will do the politically expedient

thing, knowing that this important agreement, and the coming TPIP, will still likely pass.

It's a global word, no matter how much we dislike the truth. Might as well quit acting like Nationalists, Sovereign Citizens, Tpartiers, etc., and stake out a position that is good for us and the world.

I just don't believe all the countries planning to participate in these agreements -- including Sanders' buddies in Scandinavian countries -- are wrong about the importance of these agreements.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. That's a good point

Free trade isn't strictly an American thing or a conservative thing. In fact, European countries constantly lauded by self-proclaimed liberals in America do indeed seek free trade agreements or are already part of free trade agreements.

It's important to keep things in perspective without lighting one's hair on fire.

[jeff47]

15. The difference with the EU is that the Europeans actually get to govern it.

The TPP and NAFTA don't do that. Mexico and Canada just decided what the meat labeling laws in the US are.

Did you vote in the Mexican or Canadian elections?

[Hoyt]

21. No they did not. We can keep our meat labeling laws exactly as they are, if we are willing for

Canada to impose tariffs on some of our products. Look at some of Recursions' excellent, in-depth analysis, posted yesterday, of that situation.

[jeff47]

25. The difference is without NAFTA, we could retaliate with our own tariffs

Which means Canada and Mexico would actually face repercussions for their tariff hikes. Meaning there's actually a reason to negotiate something that works for all of the countries involved.

Instead, thanks to NAFTA, only the US pays. Therefore, we get to do what Canada and Mexico want.

[Hoyt]

30. That wouldn't be smart. The repercussions they face if they don't label their meat,

are that people who don't want foreign meat -- for whatever reason -- won't buy unlabeled meat. American producers who want to cater to people who won't eat foreign meat, will wrap their meat in the American flag, so to speak.

[jeff47]

31. There's no copyright on the American flag. Mexican slaughterhouses can stamp it all over. (nt)

[Hoyt]

33. That's fraud. Jeeez.

[jeff47]

35. Only if they literally say "Made in the USA"

They can produce "Super Patriot Beef! Made in America!!" With US flags all over it. And a very small "Hecho in Mexico" on the bottom.

Because Mexico is also in "America", specifically North America.

[Hoyt]

36. And as soon as someone notices it, the store will bar the product.

To make you happy, the packer will put flags and big "made in the USA" all over the package.

[jeff47]

37. It's cute when you think multinational retailers give a shit about country of origin.

To make you happy, the packer will put flags and big "made in the USA" all over the package.

Thus blurring the lines quite nicely between the two products. Boosting sales for the cheaper Mexican beef.

So what if their slaughterhouse can't pass the (already lax) USDA regulations? A little food poisoning never hurt anyone...that I know personally...in the last week.

[Hoyt]

42. A local grocery store will darn sure quit stocking products people don't buy. If people don't care

where there food comes from, then labeling doesn't mean anything to them -- right?

You are trying to make a big deal out of something that just doesn't matter. People who only want American made/produced foods, will only buys stuff that is labeled as such. Those who don't care, will buy whatever looks good.

If they get a bad unlabeled product, they'll quit buying unlabeled products. If they get contaminated Blue Bell Ice Cream, they'll stop buying it, even if it has a Made in the USA label on it.

[jeff47]

44. Eh, you fix that with exclusivity contracts.

Ya want beef? We've got this patriot stuff. You want a different brand? Well....we've got this patriot stuff.

If you'd like, we could grind some of it into hamburger in the back for you, and put our store label on the package.

People who only want American made/produced foods, will only buys stuff that is labeled as such.

You are assuming consumers have perfect knowledge and access to every retailer and so much money that pricing does not affect their buying choices.

When you can get to one store, you get to buy what that store carries. The last Wal-Mart I was in carried 1 brand of beef. You don't get to see its packaging, because it is re-cut or ground by Wal-Mart.

If they get a bad unlabeled product, they'll quit buying unlabeled products.

Because they have perfect knowledge of which product made them ill, and perfect knowledge about which store sold it, and access to other retailers.

[Hoyt]

46. Consumers who care, will look at the label. If it doesn't say Made In USA, they'll assume it was'nt

They have perfect knowledge of what products don't say "Made in America." If they care, or just don't like anything with a foreign taint, they won't buy an unlabeled product. If they don't care, it doesn't matter. It really is that simple.

[bvar22]

56. The Trade Deal you are working your ass off to promote...

...WILL erase Country of Origin labeling,
and you can forget about any notice that the product is GMO.

[peacebird]

22. Taking away Country of Origin on meat and poultry ticks me off to no end

I am lucky, most of my meat comes from a mile down the road where the animals live a nice life in clean open meadows. But when I go to the store and pick up something, i want to know Country Of Origin. I will NOT buy organic veggies fromChina for is tance, because I don't trust China's inspection system.

[Hoyt]

32. So, if there is no label, you won't buy it, preferring those with American labels.

Nothing prevents anyone from putting a country of origin label on a product, unless they are lying.

[bvar22]

58. Come On, Hoyt, please try to keep up.

House Votes to Remove Country-of-Origin Labels on Meat Sold in U.S.

"Wednesday’s 300-131 vote repealing the country-of-origin labels for meat follows a series of rulings by the World Trade Organization finding the labeling discriminates against animals imported from Canada and Mexico.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-remove-country-of-origin-labels-on-meat-sold-in-u-s-1433990294

[Hoyt]

60. But companies will still put labels on IF consumers prefer American. A smart consumer

would then avoid unlabeled assuming it is foreign, if you have gotta have American. Seems so simple to me.

[bvar22]

34. Another BIG difference:

The Value Added Tax (VAT) helps level the playing field between European Countries

[Hoyt]

41. I don't think that makes a lot of difference.

Countries using a VAT charge the VAT on imported goods for their full price when they are sold for the first time. Exported goods are exempted from any VAT payments.

I think that means it's pretty much a wash.

[bvar22]

43. I would take "a wash" to our current ballooning trade deficits.

In fact, "a wash" would be reason to CELEBRATE!.. both sides benefiting.
Certainly much, MUCH better than our current "deals".

[Hoyt]

45. Despite the Econ 101 rule-of-thumb people use, many economists believe trade deficits are not so bad

I'll let you look up the discuss for the "bad" view, but here's another take:

"Economists who consider trade deficits good associate them with positive economic developments, specifically, higher levels of income, consumer confidence, and investment. They argue that trade deficits enable the United States to import capital to finance investment in productive capacity. Far from hurting employment, they believe that trade deficits financed by foreign investment in the United States help to boost U.S. employment.

Some economists see trade deficits as mere expressions of consumer preferences and as immaterial. These economists typically equate economic well being with rising consumption. If consumers want imported food, clothing, and cars, why shouldn't they buy them? That range of choices is part of a successful economy.

Perhaps the best view of trade deficits is the balanced view. . . . . . . "

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/trade-deficits-bad-good.html

[bvar22]

47. Are you REALLY going to look at our ballooning Trade Deficits,

and declare that to be a "good thing"?
If you REALLY believe that,
then at what point will they turn harmful,
or can we just forget about paying our bills?

[Hoyt]

48. It gets bad if China qquits investing here, or Toyota quits building plants here, or Siemens,

On and on. Or, we get stupid, and isolate ourselves.

Besides, as our companies help poor countries grow, they'll buy more, and we get more tax revenue from those companies. I think we also need to tax them more, but that's another issue.

[bvar22]

59. If what you said were true instead of FALSE,

we would NOT have our current ballooning Trade Deficits, would we,
but we do. So there is an error somewhere in you logic or sales promotion.
I saw all these Free Trade Brochures from the Clinton Administration.
Looks like you kept a bunch of them.

Cutting & Pasting all the promises from the Free Trade Glossy brochures is one thing,
telling the truth is another.

[PeteSelman]

8. There are no countries anymore.

https://m.

There haven't been in a long, long time.


That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[ananda]

9. This "important" horrific, monstrous, anti-human agreement.

..

[countryjake]

12. OMG, we're acting like Sovereign Citizens now? You really have some nerve!

Just because many of us are actually concerned about the effect some policies may have on working people, Americans and those all over the world?

Sovereign Citizens don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves, and for you to make such a comparison is absolutely incredible.

[Hoyt]

14. Lots of myopic opponents use the sovereign nation crud as a reason.

Some even embrace xenophobic Tpartiers in opposing dealing with foreign countries.

[countryjake]

27. You know any sovereign citizens? I mean actual members of that sick "club"?

Those fuckers have threatened my life for my efforts to organize and to see you so casually peg us with that disgusting label, over this TPA/TPP, is honestly unbelievable!

[jeff47]

19. Hoyt has his theories about how the world works, and when they don't quite work out

that's the world's fault.

Free trade can not fail. It can only be failed.

[BillZBubb]

52. That's a good assessment.

His posts reek of Chicago School nonsense.

[Angry Dragon]

13. Free trade only works if the countries are on equal footing

Fair trade, fair trade, fair trade

[Hoyt]

17. So are we supposed to deny developing countries a chance. That's kind of like a big winner

at a poker game, grabbing all his money and leaving early. I find it quite selfish myself. We've taken more than our fair share of the world's wealth and resources. I think spreading a little around will be good for us and the world, long-term.

[jeff47]

20. We don't have to actually cut US jobs to send them aid, you know. (nt)

[Hoyt]

23. And, it's unlikely many, if any, jobs will be go overseas. That's just fear

mongering. If any jobs move, it will be from China to Vietnam, etc.

[jeff47]

26. Yes, just like no jobs moved due to NAFTA in 1994, so they never ever moved.

The flaw in your thinking is you treat macroeconomics as zero-sum. It isn't.

[Hoyt]

50. Very few if any moved from NAFTA, that weren't replaced or were already moving.

[bvar22]

49. The Korean Trade Agreement

The Korean Trade Agreement,
quietly passed by the OBama Administration just last March, and is patterned on the TPP.
Infact, much of the exact same language is used.

Lets take a look at the REAL World of "Free Trade".

*What we were promised:
This deal will add 60,000 jobs to the American Economy

*What REALLY happened.... a LOSS of 60,000 American jobs.


*Promised: a reduction in the trade imbalance with Korea.
What really happened,
the Trade Imbalance EXPLODED.

[Hoyt]

51. It's not even in full effect yet. Besides, the way critics calculate "lost jobs" is a joke.

Last edited Fri Jun 12, 2015, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

They assume a trade deficit represents a certain number of lost jobs here, which is just wrong. If someone didn't buy a Korean car, they'd probably buy a Japanese or German car, rather than an American car.

[bvar22]

53. Hmmm. Who to believe.

...and anonymous and obviously partisan lobbyist for the TPP,
or
Public Citizen:

*The U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea has swelled 90 percent, or $13.6 billion, in the first three years of the Korea FTA (comparing the year before the FTA took effect with the third year of implementation).

*The trade deficit increase equates to the loss of more than 90,000 American jobs in the first three years of the Korea FTA, counting both exports and imports, according to the trade-jobs ratio that the Obama administration used to project job gains from the deal.

*U.S. goods exports to Korea have dropped 7 percent, or $3 billion, under the Korea FTA's first three years.

*U.S. imports of goods from Korea have surged 18 percent, or $10.6 billion in the first three years of the Korea FTA.

*Record-breaking U.S. trade deficits with Korea have become the new normal under the FTA – in 35 of the 36 months since the Korea FTA took effect, the U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea has exceeded the average monthly trade deficit in the three years before the deal. In January 2015, the monthly U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea topped $3 billion – the highest level on record.

<much, much more>

http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=3595


Now, Hoyt, I have produced facts and figures from an accredited organization.
Lest see some of your "research",
or do you just make this stuff up?

[Hoyt]

54. Like I said, they assume each billion dollars in a trade deficit with Korea is so many thousands job

They don't take into account that if the trade deficit with Korea were lower, it doesn't mean more jobs here.

Believe whoever you want, because you darn sure aren't trying to research it yourself.

[bvar22]

61. At least you have finally admitted that the Korean Trade Deal has cost thousands of American jobs.

That is a step forward for you.
NOW, it seems you want to argue about how many thousands of jobs it cost.

"because you darn sure aren't trying to research it yourself." -- Hoyt, Post54.

Another false claim. Your "research" seems to be limited to the Promotional Materials (Glossy Brochures) and promises from the Con Men instead of the Real World consequences for Working People.

It is apparent that I have done much more research that you.
I have LIVED it.
Its pretty easy for you to just cut & paste from a sales brochure,
and then callously deny that the American Working Class has been devastated by these "Trade Deals". So nice to be above it all.

[Hoyt]

62. Nope. If we reduce our deficit with Korea, it does not mean more jobs here.

[Angry Dragon]

24. Did I say that?? I said FAIR TRADE

and if you want to talk about spreading it around then we need to take from the wealthy and give to the bottom people for if this trade deal goes through then the only people that will benefit are the wealthy and the corporations

[cali]

38. there's an enormous amount of opposition in Europe- even to the TPP

[Elwood P Dowd]

2. Only 12 free traitors who support Wall Street and our billionaire overloards?

That must have been all they needed to buy in order to get the crap passed.

[dmr]

3. Where do they go from here, cali?

I get confused with all the twist and turn procedures in Congress.

Thank you for all your informative postings. I'm sure I'm not the only DU'er who is appreciative.

[jeff47]

18. Not Cali, but since TAA failed and TPA passed

they can't send the bill to Obama - the House and Senate bills are different.

The short-run plan is a re-vote on TAA on Tuesday. If that passes, it can go to Obama.

If it doesn't pass on Tuesday, they can try to strip TAA from the Senate bill (not gonna happen) or they have to come up with some new tweaks that will get the bills passed.

If the Republicans in the Senate had not paid for TAA via Medicare cuts, TAA would have likely passed the House today. So paying for it a different way may get it through the House. But then it becomes hard to get it through the Senate - the Medicare cuts were the price to get enough Republican votes to pass it in the Senate.

[cascadiance]

4. Actually 40 Dems voted for TAA and 28 Dems voted for TPA...

It was a customs enforcement bill that had only 12 dems supporting it... Read more here at Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/12/1392798/-Which-28-Dems-Just-Voted-for-Fast-Track

Now for the list of TRAITORS that we all need to start working on getting candidates to primary them this coming year!

Note here is a list of the Democrats that voted for the TAA bill. Now perhaps some of them can be excused for wanting to ensure that some protection gets put in the final bill if it does somehow get back through the Senate:

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Karen Bass (CA-37)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Don Beyer (VA-08)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Eddie B. Johnson (TX-30)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
John Larson (CT-01)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
David Price (NC-04)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Adam Smith (WA-09)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

Now here are the REAL TRAITORS that NEED to be primaried that voted for TPA! Hmm... The DNC chair was in both of these lists. I think we also need to lobby some more to get DWS FIRED and get someone like Howard Dean back. If losing the Senate with her POOR Korporatist leadership in last election wasn't bad enough, she shows her true colors here too!

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Don Beyer (VA-08)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Eddie B. Johnson (TX-30)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Beto O’Rourke (TX-16)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23

Here's the 12 Democrats on that other bill...

Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Eddie B. Johnson (TX-30)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)

[jwirr]

16. Okay. So I am still confused. I get the TAA and the TPA. What was the other bill about?

[cascadiance]

28. The article linked explained it this way...

The last vote was on a customs enforcement bill with a weak currency manipulation measure passed by the Senate in lieu of a real measure against currency manipulation.

It passed 240 to 190.

228 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted for it. 173 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted against it.

[G_j]

5. now I am confused

how does one stay loyal to Democrats and Obama?

[morningfog]

10. Just follow Hillary's triangulating walk.

[Trajan]

6. We got some work to do, Oregon ...

Blumenauer, Bonamici, and Wyden ...

Sad. ...

[cascadiance]

29. Obama "bought" them with his trip to speak at Nike a few weeks ago...

Yep, we got work to do. At least we have some time to do it now! I think we need to hammer on Wyden again to back down in the Senate using the lack of TAA in it as a good excuse for him to pull out of voting for it there. Maybe talk to DeFazio to see if he would make it public that he's running in the 2016 Senate race against him if he doesn't vote against it going back to the Senate.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. You know, Ron Wyden voted for NAFTA and CAFTA and his support for free trade is unrelenting

but I think you might be right about the TPP loophole for him anyway. Blumenauer voted against CAFTA....

[bvar22]

57. Oregon and Seattle will be "Points of Entry" for TPP products,

...and Washington & Oregon NEED to sell their timber.

[Trajan]

64. Yes, so we should destroy the livelihoods of everyone else ...

So Timber Barons can denude the landscape and enrich themselves at the expense of regular working men and women who do not happen to sell timber ? ....

GREAT PLAN!

[bvar22]

65. I oppose the TPP.

....just explaining Wyden's vote for those who haven't figured it out yet.

He does have to get elected by the people in Oregon.

[Lizzie Poppet]

63. Never thought I'd work against Wyden.

But he didn't just lose me on this one, he made a political enemy.

[dawg]

11. Obviously, on at least this one issue ...

President Obama is too conservative for the vast majority of Congressional Democrats.

(And yet, somehow I'm the one who wants a pony?)

[Red Oak]

39. I show 40 Dems that voted FOR TAA and thus TPP

Here is the info:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml

Am I mistaken?

[hobbit709]

40. 12 DINOs.