General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe cognitive dissonance of those trusting President Obama on the tpp
Forget for a moment that there is evidence that this is not an agreement that will benefit the majority. Forget that it is being negotiated in unprecedented secrecy. Forget that hundreds of corporate lawyers had access and input.
What I find really astounding is who these folks are trusting- beyond the President. They are choosing to trust McConnell and Graham over Sanders and Warren, Boehner over DeLauro, corporations over labor and environmental groups. They are cavalierly discarding the opinions of our best allies and advocates. They are siding with those they refer to as enemies.
I don't pretend to understand how people can tolerate that level of cognitive dissonance.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mmonk
(52,589 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Tell us in what way cognitive dissonance is manifesting itself
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)etc., over US Unions, Warren, Sanders, etc., or not?
treestar
(82,383 posts)You've really oversimplified it no doubt. And why are those the only opinions to be consulted?
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I oppose things or support things on the best supporting evidence. My question was fairly simple to discern. We have plenty of evidence these free trade deals do not perform as advertised for the average American in wages or the economy beyond temporary stock prices.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)So do McConnell and Boehner.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Boehner, McConnell and the like are not supporting the TPP, and Bernie, Liz, Sheldon & the rest of the liberals are not.
Amazing. Both the mainstream and alternative media apparently have this story grossly wrong.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)agree that this issue has put President Obama on the side of those Republicans, Paul Ryan also btw, who we normally do not trust and for good reason, and pits him against some of our best Democrats.
Politicians never really surprise me anymore, but what about us, are we supposed to just tag along with them, wherever they go, or is it not our duty to try to steer them back from the ditch they are dragging us into?
Just saying 'I trust him/her' doesn't explain how it is possible to ignore the facts, that someone we trusted and respected is asking us to dismiss people who so far, have shown us no reason to so.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Position somehow sticks.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Facts stick whether you like those facts or not, and you certainly don't have to like them or even believe that they mean anything.
Of course, many of us do believe they mean something.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)It's merely an opinion predicated on the interpretation of some facts, much as any editorial or effective bumper-sticker (of which, I do not argue that many believe bumper stickers mean something and are relevant).
Which is a wholly separate concept from simply listing facts, sans conclusion or premise... 
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)cognitive dissonance of those trusting President Obama
I stated it is cognitive dissonance on both sides. It gets repeated over and over until some believe it
cui bono
(19,926 posts)and still manage to never talk about policy.
paulbibeau
(743 posts)and whatever the Democrat wants to do.
That's how I handle things. When I hear reports of crime in my city, I often email the news stations to figure out whether the perpetrators were Republican or Democrat. I don't want to be coming down too hard on Democratic criminals, because if I do I know that Republican criminals will take over, and they are so much more predatory! They don't even write nice things about Elizabeth Warren in national magazines. Can you believe that? The nerve!
Just the other day I was walking my dog, when I came upon a group of youngsters burning down a hospital.
"Hello there," I hollered. "Who did you people vote for last election?"
Most of them told me they'd supported team D, and that was most gratifying, because we certainly don't want any Republican arsonists in my neighborhood.
One fellow, I'm unhappy to report, said he'd written in a vote for Ralph Nader. But don't worry, the others turned on him, beat him severely, and locked him in the burning building.
Whew!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Cognitive dissonance again by asking the same questions already ask with trying to slant the argument to an opinion hoping somehow saying this over and over will somehow get others to believe.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Maybe someone needs to re-read their Festinger & their Rokeach?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Some people aren't worth the effort it takes to respond. They will never discuss anything honestly or substantively.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If you are that interested you will do the search if not I am out of here.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)You haven't. Therefore you are not interested in making an argument.
You are simply throwing out a bait line.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)anti-TPP is far in the major of posting about this subject so what I have determined is the cognitive dissonance can only be coming from one side. This is the end of my post on this subject.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)If you're not careful, people are going to stop taking you seriously.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)I don't know if you are going for Francis or Pee Wee but either way the needle is stuck in the groove and no melody is discernable as per the always.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JanMichael
(24,893 posts)...on this issue.
The OP is simply stating a point of reality and is being countered by single lines of nothingness.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JanMichael
(24,893 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)First: It is duly recognized that those on the other side have someone here at DU, fighting Liberals on their behalf ...
Second: 'You keep using that word - I don't think you know what it means' (The Princess Bride)
Third: ANYBODY here at DU who supports Republican congresspersons over Democratic Congresspersons will catch hell for the rest of their time here, how ever long that might be ...
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Well put.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and they let their side have an opinion they trust.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Why is Sherrod Brown not allowed to know anything about it until 12 hours before a hearing?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026545946
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776689
You must have missed the leaks and these threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026545501
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026541870
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026526966
Really, why are you not worried about a secret negotiation being made with corporations? Were you fine with Cheney's secret energy meetings?
How about this... were you fine with Obama's secret meetings with insurance companies? Were you fine with him denying them until he had to admit it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that have seen the actual document, logic (i.e., when corporations write the document it's not apt to favor the 99%),
and the other side has cognitive dissonance and nothing else.
Not one person has tried to explain how this document could possibly help the 99%. Not one person.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Reps. These are facts
procon
(15,805 posts)You say this is a "fact" so there must be several reliable news stories giving the details, yet there doesn't seem to be anything that confirms your statement. That's very odd, yeah? Wherever did you discoveer that "hundreds of corporate reps" have seen it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have said hundreds of corporate reps have seen it ... even written it ... so, that makes it a fact (if that's what you want to believe).
procon
(15,805 posts)Nonetheless, hope springs eternal, and it's good to know there are still some reasoned Democrats who have not succumed to the hysteria of passing on rumors and conjecture as "facts".
JanMichael
(24,893 posts)...is that it is so secretive (it really is) and yet publicized (kinda) with little transparency.
We were butt rammed with NAFTA which I protested in college many moons ago. No shit I really did...failed time and time again...
I hate Ross Perot but his giant sucking sound claim in 1991 was right.
Please do not fall again for platitudes of "fairness" in trade. It does not exist with predatory multinationals. Bisexual, I meant bilateral, agreements are the only decent trade tools left to dampen corporate hegemony over all. And honestly they may be worthless too.
procon
(15,805 posts)know what's in it, yeah? Maybe I should envy those who can skip that part, oh well, we'll see soon enough.
JanMichael
(24,893 posts)The Maquiladoros (don't remember how to spell the Mexican border city sized sweat shops pumped up as the "future" in my econ classes in 1989...) and the rest of the deal were open and up for debate.
The end result even Bill said was flawed.
God forbid the rat and cat food eating world TPP and TPPP and TIP and TIIP whatever (Euro and Pacific) will produce in another 20 years.
Thankfully I will be 70 and not 18 and marginalized even more that they are now.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)The Senate has had full access & she has read it. As for the rest, it's the bloody corporations that WROTE the damn thing.
procon
(15,805 posts)But here's the thing, much as I might laud their rousing populism, they're still politicians. Like all that peculiar breed, they love the limelight, and showboating is a hardwired trait. Even if by omission, they aren't being precisely truthful in this matter, it's no criticism to note that they tend to exaggerate. Whilst true that corporations have provided input on the TPP, so have labor and academic groups, as well as other experts and other NGOs.
"USTR has invited stakeholders representing business, labor, academic groups and the public to be on-site at each of the three TPP negotiating rounds held in the United States to date to interact with TPP negotiators and delegates from the United States and the other TPP countries. As a result, hundreds of stakeholders have participated in meetings with, and expressed their views directly to, TPP negotiators over the course of these negotiating rounds. Hundreds more are expected to participate in stakeholder events at the forthcoming San Diego round. A list of organizations that have participated as stakeholders in TPP negotiating rounds is available online."
https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2012/june/transparency-and-the-tpp
Respectfully, the assertions you make don't seem to match the actual events.
procon
(15,805 posts)I'll pretend to be credulously impressionable and read the link you offered without any skeptical distrust of anyone who hides their identity while professing to know stuff on the Internet that no one else does.
Your chosen source simply states, "This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests."
That it. There is no corroborating link to a quotable source or verifiable documentation that validates that claim. There's only this unsubstantiated assertion from another nameless, anonymous blogger on the Internet.
Raise the bar.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)"This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests."
At the bottom of the page:
I will be fighting this agreement with everything I’ve got. And I know you’ll be there every step of the way.
***
Courage,
Congressman Alan Grayson
cali
(114,904 posts)Moving the goalposts and mendaciousness disqualify you.
procon
(15,805 posts)why would you trust any other politician's remarks?
The same caveats apply, yeah?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You see, principles and acting on those principles actually matters. It's not difficult to see when someone is standing up for you and when someone is hiding shit from you. In this situation it's abundantly clear.
Why are you so willing to believe Obama when he won't even tell us what he's up to? When he's hiding his actions?
procon
(15,805 posts)I'll have 60 days to read it and decide after I know the actual context. That deliberative process has always seemed to work better for me than running pell mell after every soothsayer with a crystal ball and a webpage to fill up.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)By that time it will be a done deal.
'secret' documents like this are never made public until the ink is already dry.
procon
(15,805 posts)If its truly evil incarnate, as foretold, the public has a couple of months to let our congress critters know of our disapproval before they get into debate. If they agree that's it's the worstest thing evah, they can vote it down, they just can't alter it... think what horrors the Republic majority might slip in.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)maybe because it hasn't gone public yet and we don't know what's actually in it. Other than that, they'd probably love to hear from you.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If they don't like hearing from us that's their problem.
procon
(15,805 posts)Remember how Republicans were wailing that Obama's terrible healthcare bill was stuffed with "secretive" death panels long before the final version was even released. Then came Nancy Pelosi's famous quip that, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
At present everyone in congress can review the TPP so it's hardly secretive. Before it can be released to the public, congress will have to settle on a provision that stipulates they agree to a straight pass or fail vote. They still have the option to nix the whole thing if its that bad.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That's ridiculous. Clearly you aren't taking any discussion of this seriously if you are going to bring that up as any sort of example of anything.
Just as ludicrous is that stupid quote of Pelosi's.
As to congress reviewing it, did you miss the video of Sherrod Brown asking how this is a democracy because of the secrecy of the TPP? Perhaps you did.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Like I said, if we see it, it's a done deal.
And the rethugs don't need to slip horrors into it. They already have.
2banon
(7,321 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)They've spent more than 6 years proclaiming him to be good, to have the best interests of the country at heart, etc. No matter what has come up, from increased civilian drone deaths to no prosecutions of war criminals, torturers, or bank fraudsters, to economic policies that have pushed 93% of the 'recovery' to the rich, they've believed he's always doing the right thing, cause hey, he's a Democrat, and that trumps anything. So if he wants to align himself with the idiots and crooks on the right, that's just fine and dandy too. Somehow that just means that he's 'fooling them' and that in some magical way, the TPP will help 'the people' and not the corporations and rich people who actually wrote it.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)even though this is not the first time Obama has had secret dealings that he tries to deny until he can't anymore. Even though Obama is the one who offered up SS. Even though Obama is the one who put Wall Street in the White House.
But they'll sell out the true Dems who fight for us every damn day, who stand up for the working people of this country and who stand for real democracy.
It's actually really freaky. It is absolutely cultish. What else can explain their posts about the TPP? Someone was actually arguing that it was free trade that brought about our middle class. My god. I guess unions don't exist? And all the idiotic posts telling people you can't criticize something that doesn't exist yet. That just shows a complete lack of knowledge about how a democracy works. How the hell is the govt going to do what the people want if the people don't speak up? How the hell are the people going to affect change if they wait to speak up until after something terrible is always a law?
It's downright nauseating. And the only reason people have any position on some very important matters is because they take whatever position Obama takes. That's it. Period. And they will argue against their own interests til the cows come home, telling you in the same breath how stupid Republicans are for voting against their own interests. The stupid is stupid.
ReasonableToo
(505 posts)...would we put up a fight over the bill Clinton signed to repeal Glass Steagall? It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of we see what will happen and we want to prevent it.
We have to pressure CONGRESS to not pass it AND pressure Pres Obama to not sign it.
He stands up for us on MANY fronts but has let us down on a few fronts. We have to fight TPP.
Tinfoil hat time: Every time I hear of people getting past the Secret Service in elevators or INTO the White House, I wonder if there's some pressure for him to take certain stances timed "conveniently" with these security breeches as if they want him to think "that's a nice daughter you've got there at the White House all alone, I wouldn't want something to happen to her..."
hat off:
The TPP is so abhorrent we need to get as many people as possible protest it.
This is a PERFECT topic to get the tea party and other right wing sheep on our side. They were against UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because, if I remember correctly, "it takes away our sovereignty".
Well, the TPP is the ultimate loss of sovereignty, yet I rarely hear anyone on the news talk about that. They only mention offshoring of jobs and other stuff that's been going on already with other agreements. The handing over of power to multi-national corporations should be THE THING we ALL rally against.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's not about issues, policies, it's about what you think of other DUers. And excuse me, but 'cognitive dissonance'? That would be you, Pope Choice and all.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Why are you making this about DU?
And, as a matter of fact, we are all susceptible to cognitive dissonance in various degrees and ways.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The OP was alerted upon.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I think you may be in the wrong place.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)“I have never, ever in my 33 years in Congress ever supported, ever supported a trade agreement. And I'm not going to start now... They're not good for the American people. They're not good for working men and women. It puts us at a disadvantage.” -- Harry Reid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/harry-reid-fast-track_n_7112704.html
antigop
(12,778 posts)For a lot more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016120910
Thanks for the heads-up, antigop. The Party is in some serious Wall Street on the Potomac.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Yet some DU members support it, which says a lot more about them than the trade deal.
And our "most progressive" Hillary? No courage at all, no willingness to make a hard choice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Refusing to run around with my hair on fire over a trade agreement that isn't in it's final form; but will, eventually, be released to the public (when it is finalized ... just like every other trade agreement) and voted on by congress (just like every other trade agreement), is not condemnation worthy conduct.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)We have learned that 5 of 29 chapters deal with trade issues.
You know this. I know you know this because you seem to be as interested in this issue as I am and I see your posts all over TPP threads where this has been discussed time after time.
Don't keep saying it's about "trade" when it's about so much more.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts) 
tridim
(45,358 posts)That's why I'm not freaking out about it, yet, either.
Trusting a trustworthy President who has EARNED that trust over a long period of time is not something that I feel shame about, despite the non-stop attempts by the OP and others on DU to convince me otherwise.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)That is 1 degree separation from the Anti-vaxxers.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You said it.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)... that there has not been a single DUer (that I have seen) that has come out in support of TPP.
Refusing to run around with my hair on fire over a trade agreement that isn't in it's final form; but will, eventually, be released to the public (when it is finalized ... just like every other trade agreement) and voted on by congress (just like every other trade agreement), is not condemnation worthy conduct.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)since I don't know the details yet I can't say whether I agree with the actual deal or not.
"Supporting" it is a strange word, since none of us have any real say in the matter.
Like every other human endeavor I'm pretty sure there will be some good and some bad things in it. I am trusting Obama and our negotiating team that there will be more good than bad.
(Some would say that makes me a bad DUer and a sellout.)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I call waiting for your opinion to be informed by facts, rather than speculation is a mature, daresay I, a liberal approach .
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Like a payday loan...it has some good in it because you get the cash you need now...the bad is that you can never pay it off.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Please re-read what Hoyt has actually said. (I can't speak to the unidentified four others).
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And arguing, perhaps, we should wait until it is made public before making up our minds.
I have seen him correcting opinion and sprculation that is being passed as fact, in anti-TPP arguments, though ... so, perhaps that is what passes for loving something, these days.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Are the bases composed of 'cheerleaders' and 'haters' all of whom suffer from cognitive dissonance? Then democracy is indeed dead.
cali
(114,904 posts)Our base supports the TPP despite the advise of so many Democratic leaders. Their base opposes it despite the advise of so many republican leaders. Their must be a lot of 'cognitive dissonance' in both bases.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)host of tea party types.
Their leaders want the republican base to support it but they don't.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I don't think it fair to say the Democratic base supports TPP ... the Democratic base, as a whole, hasn't really made an issue out of/taken a position on TPP.
pampango
(24,692 posts)That may or may not be 'support' depending on your definition.
And Democrats are the only group that supports fast track: 52% to 35%, with "Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I've not looked at the polling.
eridani
(51,907 posts)-TPP and fast track? Why did the Seattle City Council vote 9 to 0 to oppose both? WA State is highly dependent on trade, and most local Democrats know perfectly well that our state is highly dependent on trade, and we also know that TPP has fuckall to do with trade. It is only about giving corporations power to overrule government efforts to protect people and the environment.
pampango
(24,692 posts)are asking why the Washington State Democratic Party did what it did, I would have to rely on you for that answer. You probably know more about that than I do.
Obviously, in that poll 41% of Democrats did not think the TPP was so great. Perhaps that has something to do with why they Washington State Democrats did what they did. All Democrats everywhere do not think alike. That phenomenon is more of a republican thing, IMHO.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The numbers from WA State are because of an unusually strong local party with policy junkie members.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And the President says good things will come of the TPP. The Base has heard none of the negatives so they are not in a position to judge.
This is the strongest use of the bully pulpit we have seen from the President. Incredible. My opinion of him grows lower by the day.
pampango
(24,692 posts)in a position to judge." Isn't disdain for the opinion of the base a rather new phenomenon here at DU? The GOP establishment's disdain for their base with regards, particularly with respect to TPP, is quite obvious.
I'll repeat a part of an earlier post: "Are the bases composed of 'cheerleaders' and 'haters' all of whom suffer from cognitive dissonance?"
I would be surprised if our base has heard none of the negatives regarding trade agreements in general or the TPP in particular.
Any poll is only a view of opinions at a particular point in time. Opinions almost always do change over time in one direction or another. When our base learns more about the TPP than "that the President is for it" perhaps they will become more skeptical of it. We shall see.
The republican base is way ahead of them in terms of not liking the TPP. Perhaps as they learn more about it they will learn to like it. In most cases, information that turns off the Democratic base would serve to energize the republican base. And vice versa.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Both types are on display on DU. I will leave it at that.
pampango
(24,692 posts)whether pampango is clueless or evil. 
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)why he's so enamored with the Chamber of Commerce on this thing. Even the few specifics we've gotten have turned me off. Someone here said we'll be getting much more information about TPP. Is this true, and if so when? The polling numbers about Fast Track and this issue about how the Democratic base supports both really concern me. I don't know any of my Democratic friends who like what's going on.
His interview on Tweety's program didn't make me feel very good and he seemed evasive at best!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And after Tweety's abuse of Sherrod Brown he is dead to me (again).
Honest, we swore off Tweety. After several years we went back to watching him. But in one week's time he had already betrayed us. Now I DVR Ed, instead.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)tuned in to see what Obama was going to say. He seems to change as the wind changes on so many things. But, he's also so egotistical always making sure he plays clips of himself when he's on other programs like Bill Maher and others.
Ed Schultz IS someone I will tune into because he's not afraid to raise his voice where others don't! Since MSNBC took him off the air once I think they'll think twice about doing it again! I also heard that Tweety didn't want Ed back because that time slot belonged to him, he didn't want to give it up. Tweety lost out and I don't think I've ever seen him say anything nice about Ed.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)that you admit nobody has seen. And why should I trust those groups I am allied with but who have not seen the treaty? They certainly have not seen the final draft since it doesn't exist yet. Their concerns are noted, and many of those concerns will find their way into it.
It will be finalized, it will be public, and it will be voted on.
And you may be surprised.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But that point of view is far less dramatic, less endorphin producing and, more importantly, completely not rec producing!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)And portions of it have been leaked to the public via Wikileaks.
Therefore, it's not correct to say "nobody has seen" it. And there's also no reason to believe the final draft will be dramatically different from what's already been leaked. Further, once fast track is granted, the deal is done: no amendments to the treaty can be made, and the Republicans are 110% on board with Obama to make sure it sails through Congress, with or without Democratic votes.
You say you don't trust "those groups" you are "allied" with who have not seen the draft? Do you trust the congressional Democrats who have seen the draft and who are urging the public to oppose the legislation? If not, why not?
Your post is a good example of the "cognitive dissonance" the OP was referring to.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)but not the President. Got it.
And since it isn't finished yet, congressional Democrats haven't seen the final version.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is at this state only a weapon with which to hammer Obama and Hillary.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Benefits of Free Trade Agreements
Benefits of Trade Agreements
Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) have proved to be one of the best ways to open up foreign markets to U.S. exporters. Trade Agreements reduce barriers to U.S. exports, and protect U.S. interests and enhance the rule of law in the FTA partner country. The reduction of trade barriers and the creation of a more stable and transparent trading and investment environment make it easier and cheaper for U.S. companies to export their products and services to trading partner markets. In 2014, 47 percent of U.S. goods exports went to FTA partner countries. U.S. merchandise exports to the 20 FTA partners with agreements in force totaled $765 billion, up 4 percent from 2013. The United States also enjoyed a trade surplus in manufactured goods with our FTA partners totaling $55 billion in 2014.
As of January 1, 2015, the United States has 14 FTAs in force with 20 countries. The United States is negotiating a regional FTA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. The United States and the European Union launched negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in June 2013.
And for some really shocking news...
http://trade.gov/fta/nafta-at-20.pdf
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Roll the Chamber of Commerce happy horseshit one more time!
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)Those figures are from the AFL-CIO. Sorry, I trust the House of Labor a lot more than the Chamber of Congress when it comes to jobs.
Anyone claiming NAFTA has been good for American workers has some serious explaining to do on exactly how.
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)One very simple fact that can't be ignored:
http://io9.com/more-than-half-of-the-worlds-population-lives-inside-t-493103044
Duppers
(28,127 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 23, 2015, 10:40 AM - Edit history (2)
Yet I still cannot support the TPP after being told by those I do trust that corporate lawyers are writing it. I stand with Bernie, Elizabeth, and hell-no Harry.
There has to be better ways to deal with China than making our billionaires richer than theirs.
Edited to add:
“It is incomprehensible to me that leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP, while at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge of what’s in it,” wrote U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in a letter to Froman last month. .."
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17608/tpp_negotiations
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)...is ones supply chain becoming too dependent on single sourcing. A catastrophic event, like Fukashima can bring about a total shutdown of thousands of production lines, food distribution and everything from automobiles to medical care being effected, resulting in a worldwide economic slowdown.
Recessions will no longer be attributed to economic factors, but to weather events in in the TPP region. One large typhoon in the Orient will hamstring production all over the planet.
This is why there are anti trust laws, completely ignored today, and why they should be in place and enforced. Instead we are heading in the exact opposite direction and into an inevitable time that every economic engine in the world will be affected.
Even the Billionaires should see the danger, because it won't make them richer, it will just make the poor even poorer.
Duppers
(28,127 posts)Very good point!
And Yes, billionaires should see the danger but they're the very ones driving the tides (to borrow the weather metaphor) of monopolies and predatory business practices that concentrate sources.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)How many workers do they need? The rest don't matter. I'll stay with the folks that I know are on my side and looking out for the 99%. This argument that we haven't seen it so can't have an opinion is ludicrous.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)people who do the revolving door dance between industries and positions in the government that allow them to benefit those industries?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and diplomats.
Why don't you take a few moments and go to the USTR.gov site and learn something about who these people are. One of the chief ones was a former labor department upper management official. Others have been diplomats in Asian countries.
But why ruin a good conspiracy theory by learning the truth.
pampango
(24,692 posts)link you posted.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1069281
It seemed to be a reference to the old "Yellow Peril":
Yellow Peril (sometimes Yellow Terror) was a color metaphor for race, namely the theory that Asian peoples are a mortal danger to the rest of the world. ... the vision of the menace from the East was always more racial rather than national. It derived not from concern with any one country or people in particular, but from a vague and ominous sense of the vast, faceless, nameless yellow horde: the rising tide, indeed, of color."
In the USA, xenophobic fears against the alleged "Yellow Peril" led to the implementation of the Page Act of 1875, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, expanded ten years later by the Geary Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Peril
Duppers
(28,127 posts)Than any irrational racist fear of years ago.
pampango
(24,692 posts)a fear of economic domination from Asia. The "US vs THEM" fear remains.
cali
(114,904 posts)Your link doesn't even go to a post of mine. It appears you're trying to smear me as xenophobic. If so, that's contemptible
pampango
(24,692 posts)If that was the implication that you got, I did not make myself clear.
I was responding to post from someone else which has a link to a map showing that east Asia has 1/2 of the world's population. I was not sure (I'm still not sure) what point the poster was trying to make with that but thought that some historical background of Americans' fear of Asia was appropriate to that post even though I wasn't sure whether I was agreeing with or contradicting the poster's point.
I am 100% sure that you are not xenophobic. I cannot say the same for someone (not in this thread at all) who posts that "we have always been at war with East Asia".
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Duppers
(28,127 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 23, 2015, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)
In his round table discussion on Chris Matthews show on msnbc. Too bad his backers at the table were mostly CoC reps.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But many are caught up in it...they attach themselves to a personality and it becomes their belief system.
And this makes them vulnerable to manipulation.
That is relatively harmless in rock stars and movie stars but in the political world it is dangerous to democricy itself.
I love Warren and Sanders both, but I would drop them anytime they did something to hurt our basic system of fair play for all...they are not my gods and never will be...just my hope for real change.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)gets lots and lots of Recs, so I guess they will keep on coming.
Who wants to talk about "cults of personality" now, which it is not, in either example, by the way.
I wish folks would learn to use words and phrases properly....saves a lot of bother.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)But this is not about a single issue but about the overall ones which directly affect the American people and our government...not the case with Gaza and Israel.
But when real serious things like the TPP, Gitmo torture, the droning of people in the Middle East and other things like that, and you have people defending it just because they can't criticize the leader then you can call it a COP...IMO
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)A "minor issue" that isolated America's number one ally even further in the world and resulted in the killing of 500 children and 2500 civilians and levelled a city of one million.....not like the awesome importance of a trade agreement.
Got me there.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Did you drop Obama when he killed perhaps more than 500 children in drone strikes?...did you drop him when he failed to live up to his promise to close Gitmo?...and how many are being killed even today in our permanent state of war?...and now he wants the TPP which will further undermine the middle class and turn our laws over to private corporations?
Those are all things WE did and intend to do.
Nope I have heard no criticism from some people on those issues...and in fact constant rationalizations of them...
druidity33
(6,448 posts)you're gonna have to back that up with a quote buddy. Though she may occasionally express nominal support for Israel, i doubt very much you'll find a quote that says she supports "bombing" in any way.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals and schools in self defense if Hamas has put rocket launchers next to them, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said last week at a local town hall, according to the Cape Cod Times.
Warren, in defending her vote to send funds to Israel in the middle of its war with Hamas, said she thinks civilian casualties are the "last thing Israel wants."
"But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself," she said.
Israeli tanks shelled schools and hospitals during the most recent conflict in Gaza. The Israeli government claimed at the time that rockets and militants had been located nearby. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency condemned militants for hiding rockets in two schools, and also sharply criticized Israeli attacks on other schools as.
The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War prohibits attacks on hospitals, "unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy." Even under those circumstances, civilian hospitals can only be attacked "after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded."
Warren argued that Israel's use of force was justified by the violence in the region. "America has a very special relationship with Israel," she said. "Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren't many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world."
She also questioned whether to condition future U.S. funding for Israel on the halting of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. "I think there's a question of whether we should go that far," Warren said.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Also, dropping support is very different than criticizing an action. There are many people on here who not only refuse to criticize Obama, but actively attempt to stop others from doing so as well. No one is asking them to drop their support of him, but when he puts Wall Street in the White House, offers up SS in negotiations and continues to make secret deals with large corporations, well, I think we rightfully expect them to offer at least a smidgen of criticism.
On the flip side, criticizing his policy doesn't mean by definition that one does not support him.
marmar
(77,091 posts)........ it's Team Edward and Team Jacob for a lot of people around here, not right vs wrong.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)siding with anyone before we've even had a chance to see it.I'm also not willing to paint President Obama as some sort of Snidley Whiplash character with hidden evil intentions,he's not. From what I've read, the TPP seems to be an effort from the countries involved to check China's massive influence in the region. I trust Warren and Reid are being truthful in their opinions,I trust Obama is too. I'll decide for myself when the trade agreement is released and debated.
cali
(114,904 posts)saying we should trust the President on this.
Have you read the environmental,intellectual property rights and investment draft chapters?
It's hardly just Reid and Warren. It's the majority of congressional dems, every labor union, all of the major environmental groups, state dems parties, and so many more
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That analysis shows without a doubt that the TPP is only partly about trade, and mostly about undermining citizens' efforts to regulate corporations.
eridani
(51,907 posts)If Obama and the 1% thought it was so great, they'd put it all up on the White House website and brag about it.
KnR
Response to cali (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Autumn
(45,120 posts)come out against this, including any Democratic nominee for President.
840high
(17,196 posts)
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)Putting into words so nicely what has been going thru my mind.
cali
(114,904 posts)jalan48
(13,888 posts)People support their team regardless of who the players are. It does remind me of the group think of George Orwell. Rah! Rah! There's our guy!
Thanks for the thought provoking post!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Unanimous not to hide your OP.
cali
(114,904 posts)for bogus alerts
Just curious but what did the alerter say?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)That was it.
I think that alerts that fail should result in a 30-day suspension of the alert privilege.
Further, I think that any alert that fails by a significant margin should result in a permanent block of the ability for the alerting member to be able to alert on the targeted member.
There is no doubt that a handful of members prey on a handful of other members.
cali
(114,904 posts)There's a cadre of duers that alert on me constantly.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And calling out popular Democrats who are not very nice to regular people, or who lie, or who cheat, or who can't make up their minds who the hell they are and think that it's their turn to be president.
But I digress!
Texasgal
(17,048 posts)The cognitive dissonance of those trusting President Obama on the tpp
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026553382
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Divisive flamebait.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 23, 2015, 10:12 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't care for it but hiding it because you disagree with it is slso not right.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DU is becoming a free zone for those attacking Clinton and Obama but this is not a hideable post.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't think this flamebait at all. You cannot just hide things because you disagree. Get in there and explain yourself alerter!
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
xynthee
(477 posts)
neverforget
(9,437 posts)last the Chamber ever stood up for unions or any worker?
They are one of the most pro-business anti-union organizations out there.
cali
(114,904 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)They are the most pro-multinational-business organization out there. They could care less about small businesses on the local level, and use them to hide behind.
Cali, I don't think it's cognitive dissonance among the supporters of TPP. It's not like they haven't had the opportunity to study for themselves what the leaked drafts reveal and at least understand our cause for concerns. Instead, they have shown a willful contempt for those of us who have done such. I get the sense they just want us to shut up, eat our peas, and know they don't give a shit what our concerns are. They will support Obama's corporate agenda without even bothering to take the time to study what he is proposing, the little people and environment be damned. It's been that way in the corporate wing of the Democratic party since the Reagan crossover, and they now control our party.
I weep for the Democratic party Ive been loyal to for the past 40 years. It's morphed into something almost unrecognizable. I was called a ratfucker on DU yesterday, and am still wrapping my mind around that. It's certainly indicative of my worst fears about the party. If not for the true Democrats who are fighting against the corporate wing of the party, I would have abandoned the red-arrowed march to the right long ago.
I will continue to work for and support the Warren/Sanders/Reid/Grayson/Brown/Ellison/Frankin/Lee/and the many other wonderful Democrats who are presently standing up to the corporate owned wing of our party. If that makes me a ratfucker, so be it, I will wear the brand proudly because there's gonna be a whole lot of us ratfuckers.
cali
(114,904 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)+1000 well said and keep talking.
Cali is doing an excellent job of keeping us up to date, thanks Cali
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)As if it haven't been verified by many people.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I'm with you (and them) all the way ...
The chorus of rightist voices here are disturbing ... where the fuck am I? ....
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)The 1% and its friends get to be in on the deal ...we don't.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)For the 1%.
To trust it is foolish.
Shame on the President for this.
Bill Clinton assured us the same way about NAFTA.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I voted for him twice and think he's a great President. And he is the President, not a mere Senator. I've never voted for Warren and have had her existence thrust upon me by others talking her up to death.
I doubt all those other groups speak as one.
And your whole post makes the point we are relying solely on opinions of others, not on facts.
cali
(114,904 posts)That's not what I said
And you know that I've posted dozens of ops with facts about why to oppose it. Literally dozens. My point wasn't that it's just Warren, but that over a hundred liberal members of congress oppose it. Last year over hundred house dems wrote a letter to the president in opposition. So it's not one mere senator vs the President. And that's not the half of it. All labor unions, every major environmental org, public health groups, all opposed. In support of it, corporations and groups like the chamber of commerce as well as republicans, the koch brothers, etc.
That was all in the op, but you chose to respond dishonestly, and you've done that over and over and over again on this subject, ergo, unless you post honestly and at least somewhat substantively to my posts on the issue, I won't be responding to you. You're playing juvenile and pitiful games.
eridani
(51,907 posts)With TPP, Obama is with the Koch whores and the 1%. Labor unions, environmentalists and local Democratic party organizations are all on the other side.
agent46
(1,262 posts)The TPP is not politically optional like, say, civil rights or a living wage are. It's not up for debate or scrutiny. It's going through and Obama is required to bring it on. No one wants to talk about who's really calling the shots in Washington.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)witness all the posts genuinely believing that Hillary's the only thing between us and war, fracking, and Wall Street (well, she's not a Republican, so therefore she fights all these things)
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,145 posts)There are civil ways to address this. I hope Warren and Obama meet in private and present a united front on how essential a trade deal is or isn't. If the cost is more money for CEO's and upper management, along with labor and enviromental abuses, tell us why it's so damn vital to fast track.
cali
(114,904 posts)I was not
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,145 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)This is not something we are forcing on the rest of the world. This is an agreement made with the input from all the parties that will sign on to it.
Once the common ground is found it will be up for a signature.
Do folks not understand that without fast tracking the agreement is left open to revisions from congress which effectively negates the agreement.
Any change in the final draft will mean it has to go back to the negotiating process and begin again.
So any asshat climate denial tea party fuckstick can object to climate protection provisions and kill the whole deal .
Why is that so difficult to understand.
They would still have ample time to read it and could still vote against it and stop its passage but it would have to be done on a majority basis not on the whim of one idiot senator.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Unlike some, I think half of fast track (limiting legislatures to up or down votes) could work. An up or down vote after plenty of time to review and debate is fine. It would prevent nuisance attachments of irrelevant riders.
However, the fast track would need to be designed differently. Not the way this was designed. First it must have a very long time for debate and vote not a limited fast time period. This is a long term deal taking years to draft. The review process will also take a lot of time if done right.
Further, any such fast track process should not be negotiated in secret so that the public could also be heard and the final package closer to something that could be approved by people. In that way we might be able to get a rose without the thorns rather than having PR people try to hid the thorns in the final package. The negotiators would get early pressure to solve the thorny areas early during the negotiating process. If something is potentially problematic it could be negotiated as a probationary term. The negotiation process would definitely be better if it also encompasses the public.
Last, it would not totally tie the hands of people in the future to withdraw from or unwind the treaty if it did not result in the promised gains. If a treaty was to be fast tracked, you would need an amendment process (does the constitution ring any bells). The treaty could even build in terms that a country could withdraw from without withdrawing from the entire framework.
The current fast track process has none of these concepts in place.
However, the leaked substance of the Trade deals is where the major objections lie. In particular, the special arbitration panels set up to allow corporations to sue governments. I will not make the exact same argument that has been made many times on this board but add some additional concepts.
I will first point out that the only reason for a corporation to go to court is to fight laws that are inherently good for people who do not economically benefit from lower standards. It should be obvious that passage of a law allowing pollution or lowering workers safety standards or wages or which would reduce wages will NOT cost a business money. There is nor will be there any reason for a corporation to use these special venues for changes that reduce worker and environmental protections. Therefore the only laws we are really talking about are increased standards for workers and the environment. Although there are other reasons, this is at heart why fundamentally, the TPP courts are flawed. All we are talking about is allowing corporations to fight democratically passed laws that increase standards that protect people.
Other big problems are the judges are the same corporate lawyers that also bring the cases leading to the issues that plague corporate boards where they scratch all backs to increase pay.
A further problem that is rarely mentioned is that at least one leaked draft include derivatives in the concept of Investment (an expansion over NAFTA) which opens the floodgates on the amount of potential claims. The derivative market is huge and does not involve real investment in actual businesses.
Bringing cases are also expensive and some government entities have stretched budgets and could end up settling on nuisance cases or decide not to enact good laws for fear that the cost of defending them will break their budget.
If you want labor and environmental standards its pretty easy to do. Write them as a floor. Allow governments to enact higher standards (the current method between the Federal and State Environmental laws). If any Government tries to go below the floor allow the governments to sue each other not the corporations. In no form would such suits result in profits for business it would just invalidate through treaty any environmental or workers protection that was below the floor protections. This is how tariffs traditionally worked. Its a fight between governments as the treaty is a treaty between governments. Do not give corporations rights in this treaty.
Last, as a theoretical matter. There is no reason investors need protection from changes in laws that would lower their return on investment (what the courts are about). Investors take lots of different risks which are all built into their investment decisions. Natural disasters, competitors, revolution, shortages, new knowledge, transportation changes are all decisions that affect the Investor's decision to invest or not invest and determine the price the Investor will invest at. There is no theoretical reason the risk that a government might pass a law affecting future profits should not be a risk that can be factored into the initial investment decision. Is this not the basis of capitalism.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)However, the fast track would need to be designed differently. Not the way this was designed. First it must have a very long time for debate and vote not a limited fast time period. This is a long term deal taking years to draft. The review process will also take a lot of time if done right.
Further, any such fast track process should not be negotiated in secret so that the public could also be heard and the final package closer to something that could be approved by people. In that way we might be able to get a rose without the thorns rather than having PR people try to hid the thorns in the final package. The negotiators would get early pressure to solve the thorny areas early during the negotiating process. If something is potentially problematic it could be negotiated as a probationary term. The negotiation process would definitely be better if it also encompasses the public.
The rest of it I will reserve judgement on until I see some actual text of a final agreement.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That's exactly why people don't want fast track. Most of the people opposing fast track want to kill the deal. Because they don't believe it will be any better for the common workers in the US than NAFTA was.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)If the deal was a cornucopia of liberal wishes would the fast track arguments still be made?
Of course anyone opposing it is looking for any way to stop it but as a final deal has not been reached and there is no way for anyone to know what that final deal is I find the arguments against it at this point specious at best.
I am reserving judgement until we have actual details not rumor an innuendo. This board has shown repeatedly its grasp of reality can be horribly mistaken at times many here don't read past a headline then make decisions based on headlines that have little or nothing to do with reality.
It may be a horrible deal in the end and may need to be killed but I am far from convinced of that at this point and there is clearly a need for trade agreements that include environmental and worker protections. This may not be that deal but it may there is no way to know definitively yet.
Should it end up being a good deal for workers and the environment and it gets killed because ted cruz gets to ad an amendment to it that has some garbage tea party wish years of negotiations will be undone because liberals argued against fast tracking.
I have no problem with amending the fast track time frame whatsoever but leaving an agreement with the impacts this could have up to the likes of the cruz clown car because amendments are allowed is foolish.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Trying to bring down Fast Track is simply the first chance to kill the deal.
For the sake of the argument, think for a moment as if you were REALLY against it. Would you want to allow it to build momentum and be harder to kill on down the line, or would you want to kill it in any way possible? I think if you really believed it sucked, you wouldn't wait, you'd try to abort it as early as you could.
Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, the Kochs, the Chamber of Commerce, and probably Ted Cruz (I can't remember if he's specifically come out one way yet) are all ALREADY for it as it is. Doesn't that raise even a few red flags that it's NOT going to be a 'good deal for workers and the environment'? And let's face it, why would you need to keep it shrouded in secrecy if it's a 'good deal for workers and the environment'? As you point out, it will come to a vote anyway, so if Republicans were going to try and block it because it actually gives workers a break, they'd just block it then. The secrecy isn't to hide it from Congress, it's to hide it from the American people.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Killing something because you don't think you will like it based on tiny scraps of information interpreted by bloggers is just as bad as fox news voters making decisions based on the agenda driven garbage spewed there.
And no just because someone I disagree with often is for something does not make it bad. That kind of thinking is exactly why this board often times cant be taken seriously. You are no longer making decisions based on the facts of the matter and instead are making them based on personalities.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Leaked sections of the text and the people who do know more and are for or against it.
I know a lot about John Boehner, I know a lot about Mitch McConnell, I know the sort of things they like and the sort of things they don't like - we have enormous amounts of data and history to show what they believe in. So I may not have direct knowledge of much of the agreement, but the people who know more and have lined up FOR the bill tell me a lot about what THEY think the outcomes will be. I'm not against it because I 'hate' McConnell or Boehner. I'm against it because I know the sorts of policies they favour, and the sort of deals they want to see happen. I know that they get behind policies that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)There are some here however where the veneer of being a global do-gooder quickly wears off to express a sour disdain for the US working class...indeed blaming them for whatever rapacity they think the US is guilty of. Blaming the working class instead of the 1 percenters.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Great post. 
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)is the wrong way to look at the TPP.
President Obama has said the TPP is about trumping China's ability to dictate the trade rules. He said we will export what we do best and that is ingenuity and service.
He never said the TPP will bring back the jobs we lost. He said Americans need to be trained for the jobs the TPP will create.
I think the TPP is about jobs in the future. It is not about recreating middle class jobs of the past. It is not going to bring back manufacturing jobs.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Why is there suddenly a massive push for a living wage for burger flipping jobs? Because those are the only jobs most people think they're likely to be able to get (if they're even lucky enough to get a job) in the future.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I feel lucky that I was born in 1946. I don't know if I could compete in the future job market.
eridani
(51,907 posts)vs the 5000, offered by Eastman Kodak? If you can't invent an operating system to replace Windows, you should just fuck off and die?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)on Tweetie's show the other day.
I am pointing out that Obama is telling us the truth but what he is saying isn't what most of us want.
eridani
(51,907 posts)global warming, sustainable local economies or anything else that doesn't profit amoral sociopathic corporations.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I think we are slowly beginning to understand TPP
Thanks Cali!!!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)you stay bought.
My leeriness of this administration began the moment the Geithner and HRC picks were announced. At that point I knew "Change" was just a campaign slogan though I did retain some marginal hope that things would improve. And "marginal" was exactly the right descriptor - taking single-payer and the public option off the table and inviting Big Insurance and Big Pharma to belly up to the bar during the health care debate made me just as cynical about this administration as I have been about all the others I have seen in my adult lifetime.
The klowns may change but the circus is always run by Money and the Permanent Government.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)more persuasive.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one...
cali
(114,904 posts)Look at the cast of characters pro and con. The chamber of commerce, corporations, club for growth are all allied with the President in support. All major environmental groups, state dem parties, all labor unions, public interest groups allied with Warren and over one hundred congressional dems.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't see why it's so hard to understand that some people have listened to both sides, and are aware that the Chamber of Commerce and John Boehner and Paul Ryan and the rest of them support TPP, and yet still trust Obama because what they've heard from Obama is equally or more persuasive than what they've heard from Warren and Sanders and Labor Unions and Joe Stiglitz and so on. Or, like me (and Paul Krugman) they think that people (on both sides) make way too much of free trade deals
Here's how I feel personally. First, some portion of the left has strange economic views. Not as much as the free-market fundamentalists and Austrian school and Reaganomics on the right, but still. For example, you sometimes hear the same kid of "printing money" arguments that you get from Rick Perry.
As for labor unions, well, they want what's best for labor unions. Which is usually a good thing. But not always. One issue where labor unions and other progressives are frequently at odds is the environment, most recently on Keystone, but on a lot of other issues. And it makes perfect sense that this happens. Labor unions want more labor. If you are a pipeline worker, the personal benefit of good employment is probably greater than the personal harm from environmental consequences. But for the world as a whole, where most people aren't pipeline workers, the total harm is greater.
Labor unions have consistently opposed free trade deals, for similar sensible and understandable reasons. Even in the theoretical world where free trade is net beneficial, it is not beneficial to everyone, and people who work in sectors where the comparative advantage is somewhere else stand to lose. So they oppose that.
Which means that, the fact that labor unions oppose this doesn't tell me too much. And the same goes for politicians whose constituencies include large labor union support.
Then there's the issue of Republicans and corporations. On economic issues, they want what's best for rich people. Period. Usually that's bad, but not always. It is, at least in theory, possible that something good for rich people is also good for regular people, you'll admit. And there's no doubt that TPP and trade deals are good for rich people and corporations. That's why the Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce support it.
But, if a deal is also good for regular people, and for the country as a whole, the fact that it helps rich people isn't a deal-breaker. Also, if something helps rich people (for the most part), the Republicans aren't going to oppose it just because it also helps regular people. The problem is that usually, especially in recent times, the interests of the rich and the interests of the 99% have been at odds (e.g. tax policy, regulations, safety net, etc.).
To me, the question is whether TPP puts rich people and the 99% at odds. Obama has a good track record fighting for the middle class, he's a very smart person, and he knows exactly what's in the trade deal. I don't believe he would be in favor if this was the disaster that so many progressives say.
Also, I've been somewhat disappointed by Warren's arguments against it. She seems to be in "campaign mode", trying to rally the troops rather than making detailed arguments. Not to blame her, this is something all politicians do. I watched her on Maddow, and she talked mainly about the secrecy, something I don't care that much about and don't think is a strong argument, although I can see why it would be a politically good one. But she didn't get into why this is so bad for the middle class. Obama on Hardball was much better IMO.
So that's how I feel. Kind of on the fence, but trusting Obama. I don't think it will be either a big boon or a big disaster. I don't think Obama should be spending this much political capital on it, in fact I think in light of all the opposition from Dems he should probably just drop it for political reasons, but as far as the deal itself, I don't think it will have drastic consequences.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)If you find it more compelling then I can't wrap my head around anything other than one is a mark that is good and ripe for the daily con, the only little wrinkle is the fake "isolate China" complete fucking nonsense of a lie other than that it is the tired and standard Chamber of Commerce/Republican/Turd Way "free trade" snake oil talking points they've been puking out for years, a corporate hack, or have no capacity to learn from experience.
fbc
(1,668 posts)For example, it may be less likely that the Republicans will start clamoring for a war with China sometime over the next 30 years if we have closer trade relations.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
2banon
(7,321 posts)
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)I've heard a whole lot about what is bad about the TPP - but can anyone tell me what is good about it? I mean, there must be some kind of benefit to it for this to be such a huge deal?
It's well beyond me in any event. Even when they do release the damn thing to the public - how many pages will it be? Will anyone but a legal expert be able to understand all the bits and pieces in it?
So much debate about something that (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) none of us really well... understands? Further... I have to wonder if we (by we, I mean the general public) will ever be able to understand it. I'm fairly well read and reasonably well educated, but I haven't got a clue about this crap.
I really wish that our government - and it's proposals and trade deals and so on... came in language simple enough for people like me to understand.
nikto
(3,284 posts)That the TPP itself was written on special cotton-candy edible paper.
So that's what good about it.
Tastes great with ice cream on it.
But sadly, in every other way, I trust, TPP sucks.
Novara
(5,851 posts)Who, exactly are we talking about? Politicians or the general public?
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning.
still_one
(92,422 posts)Sure, there will be those who will have blind trust, but that will be moot once the final agreement is made public before the vote.
What is going on right now is a debate on the merits and demerits of the agreement, which is what you would expect from a democracy
