'Progressive' Coalition for Fast Track and TPP Appears from Nowhere

[Octafish]

'Progressive' Coalition for Fast Track and TPP Appears from Nowhere

WRITTEN BY RICK COHEN / 17 March, 2015 / Buzzfeed 15 March, 2015

Since the days of the North American Free Trade Agreement, negotiated under the administration of President George H.W. Bush and ratified under President Bill Clinton, free trade agreements and “fast track negotiating authority” have been controversial issues, generally sought by the White House regardless of the political party and increasingly opposed by labor unions and political “progressives.” What constitutes a “progressive,” and who can claim that word, is at the heart of a controversy reported upon by Kate Nocera and Evan McMorris-Santoro for Buzzfeed.

President Obama has been supporting a new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership and seeking fast track negotiating authority, which would basically give the White House the ability to bring the completed agreement to Congress for an up or down vote, but with no ability to amend or filibuster. Nocera and McMorris-Santoro picked up on a Politico report about a “rift” among progressives regarding the TPP.

A new, hitherto unknown entity called the “Progressive Coalition for American Jobs” has emerged with the purpose, it appears, to “give the president trade promotion authority and establish the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” The Coalition’s dot.org website takes you to a “fact sheet“ that contends that President Obama’s negotiating stance on the TPP will “level…the playing field for American workers and protect…jobs here at home.” They contend that unlike previous trade agreements, this one, under President Obama’s firm hand, would get the signatory countries to respect collective bargaining rights for their workers, prohibit “exploitative child labor and forced labor” (does that mean that there are non-exploitative versions of this?), set minimum wage and maximum work hours standards (what those might be isn’t specified), and adhere to environmental protection standards.

“There’s something weird about the group, though,” the Buzzfeed writers reveal. “No one in the Washington, D.C., progressive community seems to have ever heard of them before.”

Nocera and McMorris-Santoro reveal that the people behind his coalition, not identified on the coalition’s website, are former members of the Obama campaign team, including Mitch Stewart, who had run Organizing For America, an organization that emerged from the Obama campaign, Lynda Tran, another former OFA person, and Jeremy Bird, the campaign’s former field director who with Stewart created the campaign consulting firm 270 Strategies. According to the Buzzfeed reporters, “Tran told BuzzFeed News the purpose of the group was to boost liberal voices who support the Obama trade agenda.”

CONTINUED...

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/25789-progressive-coalition-for-fast-track-and-tpp-appears-from-nowhere.html

Transparency for a better Democracy.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. "Progressive Coalition to Lie About Being Progressive"

Scoundrels.

[rhett o rick]

15. I wonder how many progressives this will fool. Had me going for a minute. I just about

changed my mind.

[cali]

2. sickening. progressives will not be fooled by these asswipes.

[DonCoquixote]

3. The pic says it all

and for those who many not be familar with the reference, astrotrurk, aka fake grassroots.

[cascadiance]

4. We need to create a new term to call us progressives and then PATENT it!

And then if these bastards try to use it to name themselves as a masquerade effort again, then

SUE THEM!!!!

And if they try to pass TPP and don't allow us to sue them using TPP's lawsuit rules, call their own courts invalid!

Think of the billions of dollars of damages we could claim!

[Maedhros]

5. "Liberal" is simply a word Conservatives use to demonize Democrats.

"Progressive" is simply a word Conservative Democrats use to make themselves appear to be Liberal.

(And then there are actual Progressives, who get called Libertarians... it's very confusing.)

[cui bono]

30. I wouldn't say simply... I'm damn proud of calling myself liberal. I know the rw wants it to be

a bad word, and it has worked to a large degree, but I think we must not give it up. No matter what we call ourselves the RW will turn it into a bad word.

"I welcome their hatred."

I very much agree with your assessment of "progressive" at this point, though I see a lot of centrists/third wayers try to claim they are liberal as well.

[Maedhros]

45. They are like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland...

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

[Octafish]

52. Reagan's PR people made ''Liberal'' the target.

Mussolini did the same thing in the 20's. In between, someone removed the US liberal leadership.

It's hard to get the word out about that, sad to report, because "Conservatives" control, own and operate the media, lock stock and barrel.

Speaking of Capitalism's Invisible Army:

THE CIA’S MOP-UP MAN: L.A. TIMES REPORTER CLEARED STORIES WITH AGENCY BEFORE PUBLICATION

BY KEN SILVERSTEIN
The Intercept, 9/4/14

A prominent national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times routinely submitted drafts and detailed summaries of his stories to CIA press handlers prior to publication, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.

Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.

“I’m working on a story about congressional oversight of drone strikes that can present a good opportunity for you guys,” Dilanian wrote in one email to a CIA press officer, explaining that what he intended to report would be “reassuring to the public” about CIA drone strikes. In another, after a series of back-and-forth emails about a pending story on CIA operations in Yemen, he sent a full draft of an unpublished report along with the subject line, “does this look better?” In another, he directly asks the flack: “You wouldn’t put out disinformation on this, would you?”



Dilanian’s emails were included in hundreds of pages of documents that the CIA turned over in response to two FOIA requests seeking records on the agency’s interactions with reporters. They include email exchanges with reporters for the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other outlets. In addition to Dilanian’s deferential relationship with the CIA’s press handlers, the documents show that the agency regularly invites journalists to its McLean, Va., headquarters for briefings and other events. Reporters who have addressed the CIA include the Washington Post‘s David Ignatius, the former ombudsmen for the New York Times, NPR, and Washington Post, and Fox News’ Brett Baier, Juan Williams, and Catherine Herridge.

Dilanian left the Times to join the AP last May, and the emails released by the CIA only cover a few months of his tenure at the Times. They show that in June 2012, shortly after 26 members of congress wrote a letter to President Obama saying they were “deeply concerned” about the drone program, Dilanian approached the agency about story that he pitched as “a good opportunity” for the government.

The letter from lawmakers, which was sent in the wake of a flurry of drone strikes that had reportedly killed dozens of civilians, suggested there was no meaningful congressional oversight of the program. But Dilanian wrote that he had been “told differently by people I trust.” He added:

Not only would such a story be reassuring to the public, I would think, but it would also be an opportunity to explore the misinformation about strikes that sometimes comes out of local media reports. It’s one thing for you to say three killed instead of 15, and it’s another for congressional aides from both parties to back you up. Part of what the story will do, if you could help me bring it to fruition, is to quote congressional officials saying that great care is taken to avoid collateral damage and that the reports of widespread civilian casualties are simply wrong.

Of course, journalists routinely curry favor with government sources (and others) by falsely suggesting that they intend to amplify the official point of view. But the emails show that Dilanian really meant it.

CONTINUED...

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-cia-publication/

Guy still has a job in journalism, unlike a bunch of my friends who actually did their jobs and told the truth, which is the Liberal thing to do.

[Hoyt]

6. I do not think Obama will endorse a bad trade agreement. Further,

I hope there is a group of "progressives" -- or whatever you want to call them -- who look at the issue of trade agreements a bit more objectively than we've seen so far. Most of what we've heard so far is Nope, Never, NAFTA is the source of all our problems despite those trends beginning long ago, other countries don't matter, etc.

I believe any final draft will include at least some positive aspects to consider, maybe a lot, particularly from a long-term perspective. We should at least listen if there is some way Obama can negotiate a deal that does help level the playing field and help the USA, and other countries out long-term.

I realize that goes against the feelings of many here, but many were wrong about Obama gutting social security, approving the pipeline, supporting net neutrality, etc.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. Obama prefers to negotiate with business people than with workers.

No, I don't just blindly trust that he will negotiate a fair deal.

[hifiguy]

12. Yep. The people were shut out from the get go

in the ACA "negotiations" but the insurance companies and big pharma had reserved seats at the table.

[Hoyt]

13. He's negotiating with government representatives from each country.

I'm sure companies that trade internationally are lobbying each country's trade representatives. Unions, environmentalists, workers' rights groups, etc., are also lobbying.

I don't blindly trust Obama to negotiate a fair agreement. However, we'll see it soon enough to assess it, assuming he even endorses one. In the meantime, I see no reason to undermine the negotiations in a manner similar to the GOP letter to Iran.

Similarly, I don't trust "critics" -- with an axe to grind, trying to build a following, or too myopic to see how such an agreement might be beneficial long-term -- to be honest with us.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. The American workers' wages have been on the decline for decades now. Just how is international

trade supposed to be good for American workers?

[Hoyt]

22. Doing nothing -- and letting other countries capture trade agreements -- ain't gonna help.

[liberal_at_heart]

25. The only people these trade agreements help are wealthy business owners. Thanks but no thanks.

If this is the best they can do then yes doing nothing is better. Here's a novel idea. Let's manufacture things here in the US and pay our employees a living wage so they can afford to buy their own products. That would be a good bargaining chip to have at the international trade negotiating table. I'm not saying the idea of international trade is always bad, but for the past three to four decades the worker has been getting totally screwed while wealthy business owners get even wealthier. Let's empower our workers that way we have some real say in what goes on in those trade agreements. It has to change. The way we are currently doing things is unsustainable. Our economy has already nearly collapsed once in the last few years. How many more near collapses will it take for us to open our eyes?

[pampango]

36. Do you really think that international trade is bad for American workers? Why

is international trade not bad for European workers? They trade 2 to 3 times as much as the US does and their unions are stronger, their middle class is healthier and their incomes are more equitable than in the US which trades much less than European countries.

Perhaps our wages have been declining because we have 'right-to-work' laws that progressive countries do not have, our taxes are more regressive, our safety net is a joke, our corporate regulation is weak. It is facile to blame trade and poor foreign workers for problems that we have created ourselves.

If international trade lowered wages in rich countries, German, Swedish and Canadian workers would be destitute. They are not.

[Hoyt]

40. +1

[liberal_at_heart]

44. Corporations know they can get away with treating Americans workers worse than other countries.

I said in a reply to Hoyt that I was not saying that all international trade was always bad, but the way we do it is bad. We need to be in a position of strength when going into these negotiations. If we paid our workers more and they could afford to buy more American made products it would be a bargaining chip. The way we negotiate international trade agreements is bad for American workers and has driven down American workers' wages; NAFTA is proof of that. My husband's grandfather who owned a cattle ranch lost his business because of NAFTA. We have to change the way we negotiate these trade agreements, so until we do yes I do think international trade agreements are bad for American workers. Our workers simply cannot afford for their wages to decrease anymore than they have.

[Hoyt]

70. So, let's do nothing and let the other countries band together to trade.

How is that going to help us?

Did you read the thread yesterday about Audi choosing to locate a plant in Mexico, rather than America? I'm sure lower wages were part of the reason, but it also had to do with the fact Mexico has some better trade agreements with other countries that saves them even more in tariffs than labor costs.

Besides, what's wrong with helping workers in Mexico?

We need changes. I would like to see what Obama comes up with.

[awoke_in_2003]

78. We will see it...

when it is too late. Why the secrecy? Because the people who really run this country don't want us to know, and they have paid off almost enough politicians to make it so.

[cascadiance]

9. If this was a "positive" bill to fix things, it wouldn't need Fast Track!

There's a reason that Fast Track is being used to keep all of this crap that only corporations have been seeing with a selected hand picked few in government and that it will be ramrodded through without supermajority vote needed or any room for amendments and limited time to pass!

If they really want to "fix" things and really repair what has been screwed for so many years with NAFTA and other trade agreements, then do it out in the open and let the public see how it will truly fix things if that really is the goal, which many here have legitimate reasons to feel that it is not!

I think if the public sees that there are truly good efforts to take down the bad effects of "free trade" agreements that will help organize labor globally, protect markets, protect the environment and country's sovereignty regarding laws protecting people and environment, they'd be willing to wait and have it get hashed out with a lot of amendments publicly. If the Republicans want to stand in the way of real progress in this direction in a public fashion while they control congress, then LET 'EM! It will make good weapons for us in 2016 to replace the bastards then if they work against the interests of the majority of the American people.

[Hoyt]

21. It probably won't get fast-track. But tell me something -- If you were the Japanese government or

one of the other countries involved, would you offer your best deal on trade, environmental issues, or workers' rights, if you thought our Congress -- with its recent track record -- were going to hash through and politicize every aspect of any agreement that might be endorsed by Obama, from font size to policy. I think not.

[Art_from_Ark]

96. If I were the Japanese government,

I certainly wouldn't sign away Japan's ability as a sovereign nation to keep corporations, especially foreign corporations, from having more power than the government to make decisions that would affect everyone in the country.

[Hoyt]

102. You obviously haven't read how dispute resolution work. They only affect trade disputes, like

Vietnam not living up to its responsibilities say with respect to environmental issues. They don't impact most laws, and they don't come close to overriding sovereignty.

Has Mexico or Canada affected our sovereignty since NAFTA, the same dispute resolution mechanism is in NAFTA and European Union trade agreements. I do think it's time for some changes in the dispute resolution to prevent future abuses, but I bet some improvements will be inany final draft.

[Art_from_Ark]

103. I watched the televised debates in the Japanese parliament

And at my local train station there are often Japanese politicians on their proverbial soapboxes talking about loss of sovereignty.

The TPP is bad news for the average Joe, or average Taro, for that matter.

[Hoyt]

104. If there is enough opposition among Japanese government, they won't ratify it. I bet they do.

[Art_from_Ark]

105. The Japanese government is controlled by a right-wing coalition

that has a supermajority.

They are the same ones who talk about ending Japan's constitutional pledge not to engage in non-defensive wars.

[Divernan]

10. Obama wouldn't have negotiated in secret or pushed fast track

If the deal was actually, ON THE WHOLE, good for American workers and businesses, and wouldn't usurp local and state government authority.

What part of fast track authority don't you understand? Please state your argument in support of the secrecy of negotiations, the lack of transparency and the failure to include representatives of the labor force or consumer groups in negotiations.

[Hoyt]

31. Already did in #21. But here it is again,

If you were the Vietnamese or Japanese government, or one of the other countries involved, would you offer your best deal on trade, environmental issues, or workers' rights, if you thought our Congress -- with its recent track record -- were going to hash through and politicize every aspect of any agreement that might be endorsed by Obama, from font size to policy. I think not.

Assuming Obama even gets fast-track, the agreement will still be available to review and Congress must approve it. The difference is, Congress can't nit-pick it to death for political reasons.

No other country is going to get serious about such an agreement think our Congress will take 20 years to decide on the font size, blame Obama and the Democrats for selling us down-the-river, and worse. Nor, will we offer our best efforts if we think other countries are going to nit-pick it to death.

[rhett o rick]

24. Your "belief" that the final draft will contain some positive aspects is based on what?

Pres Obama hasn't indicated that he would include any specific protections for the 99%. He is negotiating in secret with major corporations, which I hope you agree isn't good. Don't try to tell me that major corporations are out for anything other than bigger profits. Many very knowledgible have seen parts and say it stinks. No one, let me emphasize that no one has come out to explain just how the TPP will help the 99%. And "Fast Track", limiting debate isn't very Democratic is it?

Here is an OP with some specifics, I hope you are open-minded:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026386604

[Hoyt]

35. Obama has indicated why he's involved in these talks. I believe it could be in our best interest.

But we won't know until we see it and digest it without all the conspiracy theories.

Are you sure Obama is going to screw us and endorse a bad agreement? Or is it possible a trade agreement might be for our, and the world's good long-term.

While I read all the bad stuff that COULD happen from groups who need to attract interest to keep their organization viable, I wonder whether they really know. I mean they talk about how secret the negotiations are, but they seem to know all the bad things that will happen.

Is it possible that the truth is not as bad as some folks believe. Could it be more like this post on a website in Oregon:

"Trans-Pacific Partnership: Our company, Nutcase helmets, is one of thousands in Oregon that rely on overseas customers for growth. With support from local economic development agencies and improvements in technology, accessing global markets is becoming less burdensome for small companies. But we need modern trading rules to ensure a more level playing field. That's why we support President Barack Obama's call for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

"The agreement would raise environmental, labor and intellectual property protections in Asian countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, while also giving Oregon exporters lower tariffs and more consistent access to markets like Japan and Canada.

"Trade has been good for our company. It's fueled our growth and allowed us to hire more Oregonians who share a passion for our products. We hope that the members of our congressional delegation embrace the opportunity to deepen our relationship with Oregon's most important trading partners in the Pacific Rim."

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/trans-pacific_partnership_deba.html

________________

To repeat what I have posted before, I'm still convinced Obama will not endorse a final agreement that sells us down the river. I know there are plenty who thought he'd gut Social Security, push the pipeline, work against net neutrality, etc., but he hasn't.

And I believe Obama when he responded to Matt Yglesias a few weeks ago by saying: "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 think we are jumping the gun on this, but folks have been doing that to Obama from day one.

[rhett o rick]

47. If your argument is that the TPP will help American industries, I agree. But it won't help workers.

With respect to the President but he really didn't say anything specific. " 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." This is called "rhetoric". He says "if we can", he didn't even say "we will" let alone that we will not settle for less. "If we can" provides no assurance of what he will accept. You have a lot of trust, just remember that we've been screwed before.

[Hoyt]

73. I didn't say TPP is all that needed. Sorry, we can't solve all the issues in one post.

I've supported wage hikes, much higher taxes elsewhere.

But letting competitors get the upper hand, will not help any of us.

[Hoyt]

74. That's like all the critics of TPP who say "it could" hurt.........

They don't say it "will."

I see no reason to blame Obama before he endorses a final draft, and explains the implications.

[rhett o rick]

84. It's up to the person selling the product to convince the consumer (the 99%) that the product

will be a benefit. Pres Obama is saying "trust me" and I say there is no need for trust, just tell us what you are up to.

[Hoyt]

86. Nope, he's saying he is doing what all the countries are doing.

They all are waiting to arrive at a final draft.

At that point, you and I can read it word-for-word, and express our opinion.

I would not be surprised to see it part of Presidential debate.

[rhett o rick]

89. It doesn't pass the logic test to say that although those portions leaked or revealed

all are very damaging to the 99%, the final product might favor the 99%.

[Hoyt]

93. It's your opinion it's damaging. As another poster pointed out, European countries have been

doing well under these agreements for years, with same provisions.

Doing nothing at this point will be more damaging.

[cui bono]

32. What good has come out of NAFTA for the American people?

And nobody was wrong about Obama offering up SS, that happened. Now it gets talked about as an option where as before a Dem put it on the table it was the third rail.

Also, in a democracy the people need to make their voices heard. If no one complains about something before it actually happens, how will their representatives know what they want?

[Hoyt]

38. You have no idea of how bad things might be without NAFTA. I believe Paul Krugman, when he said

"People I normally agree with, blame NAFTA for things caused by other factors."

[cui bono]

39. So, what good has come from NAFTA for the American people? n/t

[Hoyt]

43. It's solidified our relations with our neighbors and

Could it be more like this post on a website in Oregon:

"Trans-Pacific Partnership: Our company, Nutcase helmets, is one of thousands in Oregon that rely on overseas customers for growth. With support from local economic development agencies and improvements in technology, accessing global markets is becoming less burdensome for small companies. But we need modern trading rules to ensure a more level playing field. That's why we support President Barack Obama's call for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

"The agreement would raise environmental, labor and intellectual property protections in Asian countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, while also giving Oregon exporters lower tariffs and more consistent access to markets like Japan and Canada.

"Trade has been good for our company. It's fueled our growth and allowed us to hire more Oregonians who share a passion for our products. We hope that the members of our congressional delegation embrace the opportunity to deepen our relationship with Oregon's most important trading partners in the Pacific Rim."

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/trans-pacific_partnership_deba.html

[liberal_at_heart]

46. Yeah, it would be good for those business owners. Doubtful it would good for the workers of that

company. If exporting increased, and revenue grew would those business owners in Oregon be willing to give their employees a raise? That might be a good question to ask?

[Hoyt]

57. Now that is short-sighted. If the business isn't doing relatively well, you sure aren't

going to have a job or a chance for a raise.

You gonna manufacturer helmets, get buyers overseas, etc., all by yourself?

Now, I admit, plenty of businesses don't pay particularly well, but that is easier to solve than finding a good paying job when there are not businesses.

And, why don't you do a little research on the company and see how the employees feel, rather than just posting what might well be nonsense?

[liberal_at_heart]

60. I'm so tired of hearing the argument that if business owners don't get want they want there

won't be any business or any jobs so just be thankful there are jobs. That is blackmail and economic slavery. The fact is business owners wouldn't have a business without workers, and they deserve to be paid enough to feed their families.

[Hoyt]

63. It's a two way street. You just naturally assume Nutcase is a slave driver. I don't.

[liberal_at_heart]

65. I'm done arguing with you. I think it is pretty clear you side with business owners rather than

workers. It may very well be that Nutcase treats their employees well. The fact is the vast majority of businesses in America treat their employees badly, don't pay them enough to feed their families, and actively lobby Congress to pass lass that make it easier for them to put more profit in their pocket and less money in their employees' pockets.

[Hoyt]

69. I think a lot more folks are satisfied with their jobs than you think. But, I agree there are

employers who don't pay enough (at least to certain groups of employees), and there is no excuse for that. Of course, it's even worse in many foreign countries, who might benefit from a decent trade agreement that sets better working and wage standards. Do you care about them?

[awoke_in_2003]

79. "Do you care about them?"

I care about American workers first. Once we get our shit straight, maybe then we can start worrying about others. If you haven't noticed, the wealthy have been at war with the American worker since Nixon opened trade relations with China.

on edit: and not one president since has done a damn thing to make the situation better.

[Hoyt]

81. That's what I thought, you don't care about workers in other countries.

I think helping them will help us long-term.

Not suggesting we do nothing for domestic workers.

[liberal_at_heart]

83. ...

You're funny.

[Hoyt]

85. No, you sound like the 1%ers when we start talking about people in other countries.

And, I suspect many poor workers/people elsewhere view our country as the 1%

[liberal_at_heart]

87. Well then we have something in common because you sound like the 1%ers when it comes to

American workers. I am willing talk international trade just as soon as American workers have living wages and stronger unions. Then I will agree to international trade agreements. Until then, I will not.

[Hoyt]

94. The vast majority of workers have a living wage. Agree somethingneeds to be done for those who don't

TPP could be part of puzzle.

I can assure you im not a 1% er or anything close.

[liberal_at_heart]

98. no, the vast majority of workers do not have a living wage. Wages have been stagnant for decades and

have not kept up with inflation for a very, very long time. The middle class is gone. We now have the uber wealthy and the middle to upper low income, those living under the poverty line, and the homeless. No trade agreement we have made so far has helped worker incomes and this one won't either. You're just never going to get it. Luckily I have better things to do than to argue with you any further. It is time to go pick up my husband and daughter.

[awoke_in_2003]

95. The economic policies of the last 40 years...

has American workers barely getting by. How can we help workers in other countries when we can barely make ends meet?

[Hoyt]

97. We can help both with a decent trade agreement.

[awoke_in_2003]

101. Too bad that "a decent trade agreement"

is a mythical being. If TPP is so damn great, why are they keeping it so damn secret? Why are they pushing so hard for fast track?

[cui bono]

107. You never explained how a free trade agreement - NAFTA - has helped American workers. n/t

[rhett o rick]

49. The person you are quoting from "Nutcase Helmets" is the founder and owner.

If he gets a benefit doesn't mean his employees will. He most likely would get his helmets made in Vietnam if he could. That's probably why he supports the TPP. Corporations are on board but how about labor unions?

[Hoyt]

58. If the head of Costco had written an article like that, would you still be posting such stuff?

[frylock]

71. get back when the head of Costco writes an article like that

[Hoyt]

59. Maybe someone from Oregon will offer some insight, before we just assume he abuses his labor force.

[rhett o rick]

80. And we were doing so well to. I didn't say that he "abuses his labor force". But he didn't even say

it would help his employees. He may enforce the TPP because he knows that it will open up countries like Vietnam for the manufacture of his products. He is an employer, let's hear from unions.

[Hoyt]

82. I suspect he could use Vietnam now if he wanted. That's the thing, this trend ain't gonna

stop by us doing nothing.

[themaguffin]

106. Word of this bullshit needs to spread

[bvar22]

48. In 2012, Obama negotiated the "Korean Free Trade Agreement" for us.

The administration promised us that THIS one would produce thousands of US jobs.
The Reality: This trade agreement cost the US over 60,000 good jobs (and counting).

The most troubling aspect of the Korean Free Trade Agreement was that it contains much of the very same language as the parts of the FTT that have been revealed.


U.S.-Korea Trade Deal Resulted in Growing Trade Deficits and Nearly 60,000 Lost Jobs
http://www.epi.org/blog/korea-trade-deal-resulted-growing-trade/

[Hoyt]

75. Trade agreements are a little more long-term than that.

[NickB79]

100. If we lost 60,000 jobs in only 3 years to one nation

I shudder to think what we'd lose from a "more long term" agreement with an entire continent

[on point]

51. If there were environmentalists, unions, citizen groups negotiating, but corps only? NO!!

Since the groups that represent the average person are shut out, and only corporations are in the room rigging it for themselves, and the whole thing is secret, intended to be rammed through without review or changes, I do not have any confidence at all this will be good for citizens.

I do not know how you can have the confidence you do. Even Obama often pushes DLC / Cat food commission ideas.

[Hissyspit]

56. "many were wrong about Obama gutting social security, approving the pipeline, supporting net neutr"

You undermine the credibity of your arguments by the misrepresentations in that sentence.

1. I recall people being upset because offering up SS cuts in and and of itself was a bad tactic.
2. Obama still has not NOT approved Keystone XL.
3. People had real concerns over what FCC head Wheeler would do, for good reasons. It turned out o.k.

[Hoyt]

77. It did not happen. You can't argue with that.

Obama made it clear he will not support the pipeline or endorse fast-lanes.

No matter what he does, it's never enough. And anything bad that happens is his fault, no matter how long ago the trend started.

[Hissyspit]

90. Not arguing with that.

And I don't think it's never enough or that everything is his fault.

[cui bono]

108. This post is making things clearer.

It seems that whatever Obama does is good, even if you can't explain why.

[sulphurdunn]

72. It would be easy enough

to determine how many good things were in this proposed agreement if anyone without a vested interest in it could see it, but they can't, so why would you assume there is something good in it? Have you read any of it? Why would any rational being assume that after having been shafted on all these agreements in the past that this time a secret deal by the same political class that gave us NAFTA will be different?

[riobravo]

99. So you have faith in Obama's ISDS clause?

To paraphrase The Gipper:
Trust but wait till after your arm-twisting Obama
gets his Fast Track demand passed... before verifying.
Of course, by then all anybody will be able to do is vote
Obama's package up or down, limited debate, no amendments,
no objections.

[cascadiance]

7. The DINOs already had started this name grab with the "Progressive" Policy Institute "Think Tank"...

So the masquerading effects these bums have constantly been engaging has been continuing through the years...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Policy_Institute

[annabanana]

66. yep . . . .n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

11. So, Third Way "Democrats" have a new moniker. They can run, but they can't hide.

Go back to the GOP, Traitors!!!

[HereSince1628]

14. Hidden in plain sight...they KNOW that PROGRESSIVISM is MORE POPULAR

They'd use some other name if it was otherwise.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. I'm not afraid of the label socialist, but I just bet Third Wayers would be.

[HereSince1628]

27. At least as I see it, American progressives are more democrats interested in social issues

than socialists who work through democracy. In the US there is really little interest in central management of production except as a Keynesian consumer of last resort.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. You cannot have social justice without economic justice.

For too long now the Democrats have only stood for social issues. Well there are a lot of minorities out there who are being oppressed economically. When will stand up and say no more to that social injustice? Living wages, increasing funding for education, protecting SS, SSDI, WIC, and food stamps. For too long Democrats have worked to bring "bipartisan" solutions to these problems. No more bipartisanship. No more compromises. It is time to fight before there is nothing left to fight for.

[HereSince1628]

41. I share that view. You also can't have social progress without spending money

because at a minimum you have to prosecute and punish those who would deny justice.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Arbeit macht fre

under the corporations and the banksters

what a bunch of astro turf.

[grasswire]

18. shape shifters

.......and ruiners of the middle class.

[Oilwellian]

54. For a moment...

I saw "shape grifters" while reading your title. Appropriate as well, I'd say.

[mmonk]

19. "Progressive" has quickly become a word of no value.

[mmonk]

37. Correct. Symantics control people more than reality these days.

[GoneFishin]

23. Progressive my arsehole.

[Ichingcarpenter]

29. Progressive Fascism

........Progressive NAZIism.

its new and improved in the bizarro world.

[rhett o rick]

28. I think some people think that if you support one issue that is progressive, then

you get to wear the title. For example, if you support same sex marriage then you are progressive even if you also support Neocon wars. Someone here the other day said that H. Clinton-Sachs is progressive.

[cui bono]

34. They are progressively more right wing, that's about the extent of their progressivism.

Astro turfers laying astro turds.

[on point]

42. Smells like astro turf BS to con public into supporting stinky TPP

[nightscanner59]

50. If the TPP is as good a legislative idea as POTUS is hawking...

Then he won't mind uncovering what's in it!!!! I signed a transparency-demand petition before, and just now signed this one:
http://stopthetrap.net/

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Is Will Marshall part of this "progressive" group?

He's the neoconservative Democrat who heads the Progressive (sic) Policy Institute, that twelve years ago urged Democrats to get behind Bush and Cheney's War against Iraq.

[AtomicKitten]

55. k&r Keep calling them out.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://jonathanjanz.com/tag/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers/&h=480&w=640&tbnid=iYegYRFQny6mmM:&zoom=1&docid=16ogJKlGiEPXiM&ei=iEgLVZiBKYmyogSOlYLoBw&tbm=isch&client=ms-android-metropcs-us&ved=0CB0QMygAMAA

[DeSwiss]

61. K&R

[center]
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Censorship is Transparency
Mandatory Voting is Freedom of Choice
Nobel Peace Prize is For Warmongerers

http://vimeo.com/20355767[/center]


The bullshit on transparency is pure gold.................

[riobravo]

62. Why no mention herein re the ISDS clause of TPP?

big elephant in the room
ISDS: INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
obama's sneaky treasonous sellout of American sovereignty
to his corporate Wall Street cronies, domestic and foreign.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/22/business/farmers-stealing-tpp-spotlight-from-other-key-issues/#.VQtIE44RT60

“ISDS clauses allow foreign investors the right to sue governments directly in offshore private investment tribunals, bypassing the courts and also allowing a ‘second bite’ if the investors do not like the results of domestic court decisions,” the state legislators said in a letter to U.S. negotiators.

“Although the ISDS tribunal has no power to nullify U.S. federal, state and local laws, in practice, when a country loses an investor, it will change the offending law, or pay damages, or both,” they said.

In a separate letter, the jurists warned that including an ISDS provision would lead to a massive increase in corporate claims against attempts by governments to create environmental and natural resource policies, which they point out is already occurring under existing bilateral free trade agreements.

“Over $675 million (¥68 billion) has been paid out under U.S. FTAs and bilateral investment treaties alone, 70 percent of which pertained to challenges to governments’ natural resource and environmental policies, not to traditional expropriations,” the letter said.

Public Citizen, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that opposes the TPP in general, said that Japan’s entry this week to the ongoing negotiations multiplies the threat posed to the public interest in both countries by including an ISDS clause.

“Expanding the investor-state dispute resolution mechanism to Japan through the TPP would expose the U.S. to an even greater surge of investor-state attacks,” Public Citizen said. “Similarly, Japan’s government would be exposed to a potential wave of investor-state cases from any of the more than 1,800 U.S.-based corporations that own more than 7,100 subsidiaries in Japan.”

[annabanana]

67. THIS is the ONE thing that MUST be understood about this monstrosity!

All a corporate power has to do to win . . . is to show that one of our laws or regulations might reduce its future profits. "

Profits over people, writ large..

[riobravo]

88. The three judge ISDS panels

The three judge ISDS panels will be selected from a pool of competent international corporate lawyers taking time off from their corporate lobbying duties, back to which they shalt return immediately upon completion of their fair and balanced ISDN duties. They will, of course, vow on a stack of corporate non-disclosure statements that they shalt be fair and balanced in judging the damages paid by corrupt guvmints to victimized corporations (which art people, too, my friends) to comply with pesky clean water/clean air, safe labor, environmental laws.

[blackspade]

64. disgusting.

[whereisjustice]

68. Trade-Related Job Loss by State

Don't listen to conservatives trying bullshit you on how wonderful TPP is for American jobs. They are deliberately debying the facts. It isn't. Like NAFTA it will be a disaster. One day, you'll have to explain to your kids why it just made pragmatic sense to sell their jobs to Asia.

Seriously - what the fuck is wrong with people who think India and China deserve jobs from American corporations more than we do?


http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2543

Texas Job Loss During the NAFTA-WTO Period

Find Specific Layoffs Caused by Offshoring and Imports in Texas

Texas lost 90,013 manufacturing jobs (or 9.3 percent) during the NAFTA-WTO period (1994-2014), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.* This figure is for total manufacturing employment, so it takes into account both jobs created by exports and jobs displaced by imports, among other causes of net job change. The percentage of all private sector jobs that are manufacturing jobs in Texas declined from 15.8 percent to 9.3 percent during the NAFTA-WTO period.

These are aggregate numbers, but the Department of Labor tracks instances of specific workers at specific workplaces who applied for special benefits for trade-displaced workers. In Texas, there are 159,059 such workers certified as having lost their job due to imports or offshoring under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. (Note: This program is difficult to qualify for, and this figure only includes those workers who were certified.)

The Economic Policy Institute found that by 2011, 55,600 jobs had been lost or displaced in Texas – and over 680,000 in the United States – due to the rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since NAFTA was enacted in 1994.

The Economic Policy Institute also found that by 2012, 193,700 jobs had been lost or displaced in Texas – and over 2.7 million in the United States – due to the rise in the trade deficit with China since it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

* The latest available manufacturing employment data is for the second quarter of 2014. The change in the number of manufacturing jobs is defined here as the change between the third quarter of 1993 and the fourth quarter of 2013 to account for seasonal employment variations.

California Job Loss During the NAFTA-WTO Period

Find Specific Layoffs Caused by Offshoring and Imports in California

California lost 432,517 manufacturing jobs (or 25.7 percent) during the NAFTA-WTO period (1994-2014), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.* This figure is for total manufacturing employment, so it takes into account both jobs created by exports and jobs displaced by imports, among other causes of net job change. The percentage of all private sector jobs that are manufacturing jobs in California declined from 16.2 percent to 9.4 percent during the NAFTA-WTO period.

These are aggregate numbers, but the Department of Labor tracks instances of specific workers at specific workplaces who applied for special benefits for trade-displaced workers. In California, there are 160,064 such workers certified as having lost their job due to imports or offshoring under the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. (Note: This program is difficult to qualify for, and this figure only includes those workers who were certified.)

The Economic Policy Institute found that by 2011, 86,500 jobs had been lost or displaced in California – and over 680,000 in the United States – due to the rise in the trade deficit with Mexico alone since NAFTA was enacted in 1994.

The Economic Policy Institute also found that by 2012, 370,000 jobs had been lost or displaced in California – and over 2.7 million in the United States – due to the rise in the trade deficit with China since it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

* The latest available manufacturing employment data is for the second quarter of 2014. The change in the number of manufacturing jobs is defined here as the change between the third quarter of 1993 and the fourth quarter of 2013 to account for seasonal employment variations.

[librechik]

76. False flag operation

Follow the money

[AzDar]

91. K & R

[WillyT]

92. Huge K & R !!! - Thank You !!!