If they called the TPP "Obamatrade", would it *then* bother people?

[HomerRamone]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/62930/out-of-whack

Obamatrade, which is the name not given to a potential treaty, a.k.a. the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), says that . . .

You must let foreign corporations overturn national laws.

You must throw millions of people out of work.

You must pay more for medicine.

You must allow banks to gamble on and crash the economy.

You must not know what's in your food.

You must be censored online.

You must destroy family farming.

You must wreck the environment.

You must get paid less.

ALL OF THIS doesn't bother anybody?...

Is it me, or is everything related to Obamacare just a little bit out of whack?

If we were to rename the single largest and most destructive program that the U.S. government wastes money and lives on "Obamawar," would it then start to bother people?

Can we call the subsidizing of fossil fuels "Obamasmoke"? Would the earth win a few more supporters if we did?

[Scuba]

1. Obama's remaining supporters would hate that.

[newfie11]

2. Works for me.

[treestar]

3. Obama doesn't intend to do any of that

You must be wrong about the TPP. Do you have any proof it is intended to bring about those effects? No. Quit trying to use this as a wedge issue. Nobody is falling for it.

[HomerRamone]

6. I don't know whether you just left off the sarcasm smilie or whgether you're serious nt

[Romulox]

9. I wouldn't bother engaging that poster. Waste of time. nt

[treestar]

17. We're just supposed to believe all that because it has been repeated over and over?

and we are supposed to believe our government really wants to wreck our economy.

It's obviously much more complex than that.

Trying to bully people into accepting the wedge issue isn't going to work because many people think for themselves.

[ananda]

26. The TPP details are out. It's a great deal for corporations and profiteers.

They wrote it after all.

For the 99% it's an utter disaster.

[Hoyt]

29. It's true, he's doing away with overtime pay, his tax increases

on upper income didn't happen, he doesn't continue to include further tax increases in every budget, the pipeline is pumping tar sand dirty oil into our heartland, and a bunch more that proves he is selling us down the river.

He's been working to undermine us since he took office.

Do I need the Sarcasm thingie?

[lunatica]

42. Yes, you need the sarcasm thingy

Because we live in Idiocracy now and what you've said is something I've heard argued passionately as 'facts'. Even on DU.

[Skittles]

72. oh believe me, they are serious

[marble falls]

12. What do you think the TPP is about? What effects do you think it will produce?

[treestar]

16. It's just to regulate trade

that would not have been regulated otherwise. Since it's complicated, people can use it to scare others.

There's no proof it would have any of those effects.

[marble falls]

22. Its not going to regulate any trade that isn't already regulated. How will it regulate trade.....

better by making it easier to export US jobs?

[Renew Deal]

4. Can you cite each one of those claims?

Are those claims direct quotes?

[randome]

5. Spoken like a true economist! With legible data and explanations to back up each point!

Oh. Sorry. I was looking at some other post.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[B Calm]

7. It pisses me off that he pushed congress to pass this. But, let's be real it was republicans

in Congress that passed it!

[Romulox]

10. LOL. Way to be cognitively dissonant! nt

[B Calm]

14. You are confusing reality with fantasy!

[Romulox]

24. And you are engaging in bizarre projection to protect your fantasy world. nt

[B Calm]

25. Whatever! I do know it was REPUBLICANS that passed this piece of SHIT, just

like NAFTA.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. And who then signed it, rather than vetoing it?

Let them pass it with a veto-proof majority, and I'll let him off the hook from being every bit as responsible as the Republicans you want to give all the blame to.

He couldn't do it without them, and they couldn't do it without him.

[Romulox]

39. NAFTA, TPA/TPP are all DEMOCRATIC bills, signed by DEMOCRATS. nt

[B Calm]

61. Actually republicans were writing NAFTA when Reagan was president.

[Romulox]

62. NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993

[B Calm]

63. and passed in congress first by the vast majority of republicans.

[City Lights]

15. No Democrats voted for this?

Is that what you're claiming?

[B Calm]

20. No, but the overall vast majority of yes voters were republicans.

Same thing with the NAFTA vote.

[Romulox]

40. The signature at the bottom is a the leader of the Democratic Party. Just like NAFTA. nt

[B Calm]

64. Duh, not arguing that. Before the president can sign a bill, it has to be passed in congress!

You do know that don't you?

[Romulox]

66. What you are doing is called "deflecting". nt

[B Calm]

67. In your mind. Will you be voting for republicans to overthrow this trade bill?

[HomerRamone]

8. Have people in this thread read the leaks of TPP chapters, or at least about them? nt

[treestar]

19. If they had they would realize

how complex it is and would not be jumping on bandwagons to allow internet posters to scare them about it and use it to divide the Democrats.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. Yes. nt

[Romulox]

11. DU is full of MANY rightwingers pretending to be "progressives". They support TPP, just like NAFTA.

[marble falls]

13. True that.

[treestar]

21. DU is full of people who refuse to just jump on this bandwagon!

And demand proof of the assertions that the US government and the banks and corporations and global actors are in this big conspiracy to destroy the world.

[Romulox]

23. I could have told you that you support TPP without reading a single post of yours.

You support the powerful over the powerless--reflexively, and at every turn.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

35. Not opposing something does not equate to support.

Remember when *Shrub said "you're either with us or against us"? It's that kind of black and white thinking that we've detested here at DU.

Some of us would rather wait to see the facts before setting our hair on fire.

[Romulox]

38. LOL. You guys are just too slick! You've got everyone fooled! nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

43. I don't support the TPP.

I also don't oppose it. I don't know the contents of what's in it, and I refuse to base my decisions on leaked drafts that can't be verified.

[HomerRamone]

45. So everyone from Warren and Sanders on down who believe the leaks are fools nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

46. They don't read the leaks...

They're privy to the actual text as it sits right now (which, is different from the leaks). Notice they haven't mentioned any specifics of why they don't like it?

[Romulox]

47. I believe you. However, you reflexively support those who support the TPP. Same same. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

48. Not true.

Treestar (who I commented in support of) has never given support of the TPP.

Politicians who I like and support are on both sides of the argument, so...

Black and white thinking, it's a bad thing.

[Romulox]

50. You don't even have the courage of your convictions. You clearly support this crap.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

52. Except that I don't.

Nor do I oppose it. I am ambivalent on it right now until the text of the final agreement comes out and I can look at the details for myself.

You can try and put words in my mouth, but it won't change a thing on my end.

[Romulox]

53. Passive aggressive support of a rightwing trade bill: it's a thing. nt

[Dr Hobbitstein]

54. "You're either with us or against us"

I got it.

[Chan790]

34. If you don't believe they are...and personally profitting from it...

you're mighty naive.

I've got a glass of some deconstructed water I can sell you though that will cure your naivety permanently. Just $1000.

(Deconstructed water is invisible. You'll have to take my word for it that it contains hydrogen gas and oxygen gas in the correct 2:1 ratio.)

(just like you expect us to believe the foolishness that this FTA written by corporate lobbyists isn't a corporate giveaway.)

[LondonReign2]

57. DU is also full of poeple that said gays folks already had enough rights before the

Supreme Court decision. You know, like you did.

Unsurprisingly its mostly the same people defending the TPP.

[gordianot]

18. There is much merit in what you note.

I was at one time an ardent almost fanatical Obama supporter. There is no repair possible for his support of the trade deals. Time will show everything Obama accomplished was secondary to the trade deals. Overtime pay adjustments is also no substitution. The degree that Obama's name can be used to disgust Republicans sounds to me a worthy legacy for his Presidency.

[ananda]

27. I'm disgusted with Obama's actions as a Democrat.

We've been sold down the river, so to speak.

[n2doc]

28. They do call it that

If you google the term you will find the usual RW loons have used that term many times. There is even a website.

[Sunlei]

32. You must have a seat at the table with our President to know every detail

You said, "Is it me"

It is you. Thanks for your concern

[HomerRamone]

36. *I* did not write the excerpt above

and to say that you can't believe the leaks or anything except direct statements from the President is authoritarianism at its worst

[Sunlei]

41. ok, sorry. you wrote the headline on opinion blogger#56872s screed.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

33. I've seen many a tea-partier

and Fox News bobble head call it "Obamatrade".

[B Calm]

68. Now that's deflecting and completely ignoring the majority of republican yes votes

in congress that passed this piece of shit and handed to Obama to sign.

[Hoyt]

37. Another view . . . . . .

"There are several reasons to support the TPP despite globalization concerns. First, the TPP — which seeks to govern exchange of not only traditional goods and services, but also intellectual property and foreign investment — would promote trade in knowledge-intensive services in which U.S. companies exert a strong comparative advantage. Second, killing the TPP would do little to bring factory work back to America. Third, and perhaps most important, although China is not part of the TPP, enacting the agreement would raise regulatory rules and standards for several of China’s key trading partners. That would pressure China to meet some of those standards and cease its attempts to game global trade to impede foreign multinational companies. . . . . . .

"But if the TPP has little downside for the U.S., what’s the upside? Why bother with the deal at all? The reason is that the TPP is about much more than manufacturing. Most notably, it promises to liberalize trade in services and in agriculture, sectors in which the United States runs large trade surpluses, but which the World Trade Organization, despite 20 years of trying, has failed to pry open internationally. Successfully exporting information and computer services, where the U.S. maintains substantial technological leadership, requires more than low tariffs. It also requires protecting patents against infringement and safeguarding business assets and revenues against expropriation by foreign governments. To the extent that Obama succeeds in enshrining these guarantees in the TPP, the agreement would give a substantial boost to U.S. trade. . . . . . .

"Expanding global trade has remade manufacturing, forcing workers, businesses, and entire regions to endure often painful adjustments. However, much as we might like to return to 1970 when manufacturing comprised a quarter of U.S. nonfarm employment, that’s impossible without massive protectionist barriers that would isolate the U.S. economy and lower U.S. living standards. Blocking the TPP because of justified unhappiness over manufacturing’s lost glory would amount to refighting the last trade war — beggaring the future as retribution for the past. A responsible trade agenda should instead seek to provide the supporting policy structure – protections for intellectual property and freedom from confiscatory regulations – that allows U.S. companies to excel in the sectors where they are strong."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/03/12/why-obamas-key-trade-deal-with-asia-would-actually-be-good-for-american-workers/

[HomerRamone]

44. "protections for intellectual property and freedom from confiscatory regulations"

just what industries like Big Pharm need more of...

[Joe Turner]

55. Lower U.S. living standards???

I have to laugh at the ridiculous extent you TPP supporters go to sell this economic poison. Unless you have been home bound or institutionalized for 25 years, corporate trade deals such as TPP have done exactly that...lower U.S. living standards..Dramatically. TPP if passed will be the final blow to our once proud and healthy Middle Class.

[Hoyt]

65. Likely would be much lower without trade deals.

[Joe Turner]

69. Nope.

History makes that clear. When this country cared about building its industry we made sure our trade policies encouraged domestic production. We gave that up with corporate trade policies.

[Hoyt]

70. Domestic production has been on the skids for years/decades.

[Joe Turner]

71. That's exactly right

and corporate trade deals have been at the epicenter of our industrial decline. No matter how compelling the evidence is of self serving corporate trade agreements cause on the decline of manufacturing in America, Shills like you just ignore it like the ignoramuses you are.

[Hoyt]

73. Nope, we just aren't competitive and isolating ourselves is not a solution.

[Joe Turner]

75. You are the master of Red Herrings

Signing corporate trade pacts that inure to the benefit of other nations at the expense of American workers has nothing to do with being competitive or isolating ourselves. This country became the world's industrial power with the highest standard of living without corporate trade deals. Our trade policy prior to the late 1970s was crafted to provide jobs and grow new industries. It was an epic success as America ran trade surpluses and built the most powerful industrial economy ever with plentiful jobs and opportunity. Contrast that with the nightmare of corporate hegemony where corporations write our trade policy allowing them to plunder with the wealth of this country and export jobs by the millions as they hold their hands out for taxpayer subsidies. What's that saying about the definition of insanity?

[ismnotwasm]

49. This is one of the most incoherent Blog post ever

Starts with TPP--then takes a slam at The ACA. My home state has 1.6 million newly insured people with the ACA--many of them for the first time. The TTP had been in the works for years and is care more complicated that simplistic internet jargon. I'm not a fan of parts of what I know, but I do understand we need a significant trade deal. I'm glad we have a Democrat in office to facilitate it.

[Romulox]

51. LOL. What a *shock* to see you come out to defend TPP! nt

[ismnotwasm]

56. Now now

Behave.

[HomerRamone]

58. It is so hard sometimes to convey an article's point from excerpts.

Commenters here are focusing on Obama himself. The article is saying that although we should have single payer instead, Obamacare isn't nearly as awful as TPP (and executive and judicial overreach and corporations buying politicians and war and subsidized fossil fuels). So why aren't people up in arms about the worse things? Is it because they don't associate them with Obama? (I'd argue it's that and because they haven't been whipped up into a frenzy over them because Republicans and corporate media want these things).

[ismnotwasm]

60. That and possibly it's that Trade deals are difficult to understand

As well as don't have immediate, personal impact, like the ACA does. The trade deal I despise most is CAFTA. I simply don't know enough yet about TTP-- although I fully intend to, to the best of my ability as it unfolds.

I do know it's been negotiated for years. Wiki has an interesting page on it at least.

[Elwood P Dowd]

74. We need another corporate written fake free trade deal like we need a freaking hole in our heads.

The damn TPP piece of whale feces was written by Wall Street executives on loan to USTR.

[MisterP]

59. but it has money for temporarily displaced workers! look how the unemployed will suffer when

Pub governors refuse the subsidy!