Does Obama truly believe that the TPP will help American workers?

[glasshouses]

What does he know that he's not telling us?

I find it hard to fathom that he would deliberately want something that he knows
would hurt American jobs.

Would he actually do something so deliberate knowing he will hurt not only the middle class in this country but hurt the environment
in the process . to do something that will only really help corporations and the mega rich in this world while hurting the middle class.

Is he actually that kind of man?

[cascadiance]

1. What is good in a democracy is TRUTH and OPEN DISCUSSION of legislation...

... to get a consensus from the INFORMED governed to their representatives that such legislation is good for them.

The "we need to do this in secret to pass it, and we know what's best for you" approach that the Fast Track legislation dictates as its only raison d'etre, is UNDEMOCRATIC! Our legislators should be reminded that they live in a democracy and that they shouldn't be passing legislation that destroys that very institution, no matter how they think they will use such power to do "good things". "Good things" have different definitions depending on who you talk to and their circumstances.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Question ...

Under FastTrack, do the Legislators get to look at the agreement before they vote?

[randys1]

26. Not sure, found this

The fast track negotiating authority for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29

[Hoyt]

35. Not only do they get to look at it, they can vote against it. In the unlikely event Obama gets

fast-track, what they can't do is nit-pick it to death. If they could do that, it would be impossible to negotiate any kind of agreement with a bunch of other countries.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. But more ...

From th wiki link:

If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) {Comment: At which point the agreement becomes public, i.e., EVERY interested party gets a look at what is ACTUALLY there and can perform an INFORMED analysis of the agreement}Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged,{That's 45 days for interested parties to weigh in on what is ACTUALLY in the agreement} and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).){That's another (up to) 15 days for interested parties to influence the legislators}

In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.

So while the agreement is NEGOTIATED in secret, the voting part (i.e., the approval process, that is democracy) is intact and transparent.

"But ... but ... but ... the time-line is so short (no more than 90 days)!"

This IS the 21st century. There all these things called computers and advocacy groups with thousands of staffs to dissect and analyze the product, to the last comma.

These secrecy/fast-track fears are manufactured.

[djean111]

2. I think he is just a corporatist, and is not unduly worried about or thinking of American workers.

IMO, he seems almost dismissive of American workers when he talks up the TPP. Especially when he seemed to understand what NAFTA did, and campaigned on re-negotiating NAFTA, campaign on putting on comfortable shoes and standing up for unions. Right.
I certainly do not subscribe to the theory I have read elsewhere, where Obama is just being very very clever, and none of the leaked stuff will happen or is true.

A politician is beholden to his donors. Workers may be given social rights, like gay marriage, but the economy's riches will go to the 1%. It disgusts me when some say oh, he had to make a choice. No, he did not.

[glasshouses]

6. But when you hear him talk about the poor and middle class it doesn't

seem like an act . He sounds genuine about it.

That's why it's so surreal some of the things he supports , food stamp cuts , TPP etc..

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. It's all a trick ...

[randys1]

27. I think he had to make a deal a long time ago with certain supporters

He was really against this stuff and then changed and there is a reason and it is always politics.

I hate that he is doing this, but it is what it is I guess.


I still support him, but this shit pisses me off

[cheapdate]

19. Why do you say Obama "supports" food stamp cuts?

The administration along with senate Democrats, doggedly fought against the Republican's farm bill for over a year. The initial Republican house proposal called for the the program to be cut by $40 billion and for the program to be separated permanently from the 5-year farm bill.

After a very long and contentious fight, the final bill ncluded $9 billion in cuts. It was a compromise. The president isn't a king.

"But the assault on the food stamp program "could have been much, much worse," argues Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. Stacy Dean, the vice president for food assistance policy at the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), agrees. Democrats succeeded in stripping many draconian GOP provisions from the bill. Republicans wanted to impose new work requirements on food stamp recipients; allow states to require drug testing for food stamps beneficiaries; ban ex-felons from ever receiving nutrition aid; and award states financial incentives to kick people off the program. None of those measures were in the final legislation, Dean notes."

Hell, Bernie Sanders voted for the final legislation.

[emulatorloo]

39. Glasshouses probably read it on DU. Some DU'ers make up shit to smear Democrats

in the same way that the Koch Bros, Karl Rove, and Fox News like to make up shit to smear Democrats.

It is sad to see DU members sink to that level, but that's how it is.

At some point the shit that gets made up becomes DU convention wisdom.

The lie becomes truth w repetition.

So glasshouses probably read it on DU and is repeating it here.

[840high]

28. Talk IS cheap.

[Calista241]

3. I think we're facing an either / or kind of a situation.

Either we negotiate trade now, when we have all the power in that part of the world. Or we negotiate it later, when China's agenda will set the stage for the trade agreement.

I at least have confidence Obama will insist that standards and workplace requirements be met, whereas the Chinese will have no concern about the wellbeing of the environment or living standards of workers.

The people who get used to higher wages now, will have a hell of a time being convinced to take lesser wages 10 years from now.

[glasshouses]

7. You're saying he's caught between a rock and a hard place ( so to speak)

[djean111]

10. Only 5 chapters of the "trade" agreement have anything to do with trade.

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.


The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations. The tribunals would be authorized to order taxpayer compensation to the foreign corporations for the "expected future profits" they surmise would be inhibited by the challenged policies.

And so far no one has seen any teeth in standard and workplace requirements, or penalties. Also, I think that saying people here who are used to getting higher wages will have to convinced to take lesser wages AT ALL directly contravenes Obama's blather that this is good for AMERICAN WORKERS.

I think we will still be sold things like dirty seafood from Vietnam, but the big change will be - TA DA!!!! No labels that say the seafood is from Vietnam.

[Populist_Prole]

4. Wellllll............

As in the case of Clinton with NAFTA and GATT and MFN status with China, they are/were both trying to remain viable by placating their corporate handlers by hiding behind technocratic and wonkish "perfect world" scenarios of touting exports while ignoring imports. This wonk-ishness gives them plausible deniability that they are harming the working class. ( or so Clinton thought, or President Obama thinks )

[dilby]

5. How about he does not know personally a single person who will be hurt by this.

But he does know personally a lot of people who will benefit from this. Isn't that how politics works, you never do anything that will hurt your friends?

[glasshouses]

8. That's not who elected him

Big money only goes so far , it's the little guys and gals like us who showed up to the polls

[dilby]

9. And he has no more elections to win.

Little guys and gals get you into the White House, Big Money pays for your retirement.

[djean111]

12. And we did, didn't we. Not needed any more, are we? Simple as that.

[cheapdate]

11. I think he truly believes it will help.

I've come to my own conclusions through a long process of diligent study and reflection on the human and social, environmental, political, and economic consequences of the present "globalization" regimen and I've concluded that I'm against it.

But I have little doubt that the president honestly believes in it and belives that it's good.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I think it strains credulity to suggest that he doesn't. N.T.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. answering your last question ...

Which would answer most of those preceding it ...

No, he is not that kind of man.

At least, we have no evidence that he is such a man; rather, and but, we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[99Forever]

15. I don't think he cares one little bit...

... About working people beyond how to make us do more for less and tax us to finance the war machine.

[840high]

30. Correct.

[bigwillq]

38. Pretty much (nt)

[Hoyt]

16. Responding to Matt Yglesias, the man who was said to be gutting Social Security, for the pipleline,

against net neutrality, etc., said the following:

"Where Americans have a legitimate reason to be concerned is that in part this rise has taken place on the backs of an international system in which China wasn't carrying its own weight or following the rules of the road and we were, and in some cases we got the short end of the stick. This is part of the debate that we're having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we've been negotiating. There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, 'Why would we want another trade deal that hasn't been good for American workers? It allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China and then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got cheaper sneakers, but we also lost all our jobs.'"

"And my argument is two-fold. Number one: precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we're trying to deal with right now is, can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it's fairer, because right now it's not fair, and if you want to improve it, that means we need a new trading regime. We can't just rely on the old one because the old one isn't working for us."

"But the second reason it's important is because the countries we're negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. And if we don't write the rules out there, China's going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged. Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged. So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged. Why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal. It doesn't mean that we're still not going to see wage differentials between us and them, but they're already selling here for the most part. And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the game in a place that we've got to be. . . . . . ."

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript


I'm sorry folks, I still believe Obama will not endorse a bad deal, but it's worth seeing what he can get. But, like the pipeline, Social Security, net neutrality, important social issues, etc., Obama is not to be believed because it is clear he's bent on selling us down the river. Do I need a sarcasm thingie?

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. +1. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

24. If "because Obama" wasn't bullshit then supporters would be shoving the benefits of the deals

he has already done but you can't because they aren't advancing the interests of of our working class any more than the preceding garbage.

No one cares about lame China boogiemen arguments either. Of course they don't have our interests at heart but neither do our own phony "representatives".

[great white snark]

37. No need to wait and see when the chronically mistaken pay no price for being so.

They could care less about the issues-all they want is a validation of their erroneous opionions regarding President Obama.

[msongs]

20. when words and actions do not match, actions are the truth nt

[pampango]

21. I think he really believes that environmental standards and labor rights are both good in their own

right and will our trade more competitive with countries that now have low standards for both.

Republicans always argue that Democratic politicians are in government for the power and money. I have not seen any evidence that is true with Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

32. When our garbage environmental and labor protections are used as the gold standard

that others in the agreement cannot be expected to match but as an aspirational piece of pie in the sky then I'm not a prospective buyer because it is a snow job, it is not designed to help our citizens at all.

Actually, it sounds like the larger context or the thing that it will in practice make it even more difficult for us to improve on either front without renegotiating the deal with our "partners" otherwise our already outgunned and over matched regulatory and enforcement regimes have to battle ever stronger corporate arbitration along with regressive forces, corporate capture, and bureaucratic inertia we are already struggling mightily with while building in room for slippage because the net outcome of the negotiations will of course fall far short of our own sorry state of affairs so there will be plenty of room for more deregulation and havoc and still end up better than what we would be bound to.

What improvements do you think are being sought for American labor and environmental problems?

[CK_John]

22. TPP is about trying to sell our stuff to the 5billion people that we buy their stuff from.

[TheKentuckian]

34. Sell what stuff? Food, weapons, and heavy equipment? Seems all that sells just swell as is.

[Brigid]

25. I don't know or care what he thinks anymore on this topic.

All I know is, I got reamed supporting NAFTA, and I am not interested in making the same mistake twice. Plus, the lack of transparency does not exactly inspire confidence.

[blm]

29. Interesting concerns you seem to have. And, constant.

Odd avatar for someone whose posts are generally aggressive, or passive aggressive targeting Obama.

Wasn't it just a day or so ago when you posted the RW talking points against Affordable Care Act while you were expressing 'concern' for premiums?

Oh yeah - The RNC talking points lately are all about pretending Obama and Dem policies destroyed the middle class, not THEIR supply side economics. They are pretty certain the dumbed down GOP voting base will believe anything.

[EndElectoral]

31. It's irrelevant what he beleives on it. He's wrong.

[TheKentuckian]

33. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions so I'm not sure why I should care.

Malicious, absurdly wrongheaded, ignorant, blind, suckered into an ideology, a trapped pawn, well intended but wrong, or whatever you got all spends the same to me.

Is their some practical difference if the possibilities all lead to the same outcome?

Personally, I don't believe it is malevolent in intent but I believe ideologically he on balance believes what is good for big business is what is good for the people. That he believes government does have a role and that is substantially creating conditions for big business to flourish. I believe that he thinks of corporate globalization to be both good and inevitable that necessarily "won't be a bloodless process" but is in favor of doing so in a manner that minimizes such best as "reasonably possible" by wise but frugal distribution of crumbs and gentle "curbing of the worst excesses" while moving forward with the agenda.

No, I don't think it is hate based or anything or that he just completely doesn't care but I also don't think it functionally matters because he is still dangerously wrong wherever his heart may lie.