I'm glad TPP is failing. I think Obama is very wrong to pursue it.
3
There's obviously a reason none of us have seen more than glimpses of the paperwork behind this. There's obviously a reason no one in Congress has seen more than excerpts. The reason's clearly not democratic or even in the spirit of openness. Even the small amounts we've seen have not looked good to many of us. To push this when even the president's insight into it is in serious doubt comes across as foolish at best.
2
I find it strangely timed this agreement with the expanded panama canal coming on line and huge order increase of huge 19 thousand plus container ships . And the huge investments on port facilities in the west and gulf and east coast. Remember the Long Beach and L A port strikes? They knew about this trade suppoed agreement, both union and owners. Hang on we about to get invaded World War lll. With out a shot being fired! The only damage to average everyday people, no damage to corporations.
I don't think the President has read this document or even understands it's implications. It would gut environmental regulations around the world. i don't see how he could want that for his legacy.
5
The free trade Davos billionaires are the ones who built China into the menace it is, now they want to solve that with more free trade. They assured us that trade with China would turn them into a democracy, after all everyone wanted to be just like them, the masters of the universe. The American establishment ate out of their hand, converted to globalism en masse. Chinese Communist leaders liked the billionaire part, but not democracy.
Fast track will enable any President in the next 6 years to pass or modify basically any trade deal; trade deals have always succeeded after fast track was passed, and politicians find the generous billionaires very persuasive.
Although our leaders have assured us that trade deals won't change immigration policy, that is not true.
http://www.epi.org/blog/tisa-a-secret-trade-agreement-that-will-usurp-am...
'In fact, deregulating the U.S. work visa system, and therefore opening it up to foreign corporations that provide services (as opposed to goods) is the explicit purpose of an entire annex (section) in TiSA, entitled “Movement of Natural Persons.” The text was heretofore secret until Wikileaks published it on its website last week.'
Fast track will enable any President in the next 6 years to pass or modify basically any trade deal; trade deals have always succeeded after fast track was passed, and politicians find the generous billionaires very persuasive.
Although our leaders have assured us that trade deals won't change immigration policy, that is not true.
http://www.epi.org/blog/tisa-a-secret-trade-agreement-that-will-usurp-am...
'In fact, deregulating the U.S. work visa system, and therefore opening it up to foreign corporations that provide services (as opposed to goods) is the explicit purpose of an entire annex (section) in TiSA, entitled “Movement of Natural Persons.” The text was heretofore secret until Wikileaks published it on its website last week.'
8
I agree with Bernie Saunders on this issue. Look him up on the internet and see and hear what he has to say on it. He is strongly against it and says it would be a disaster for America. Vote no and sign every petition against this.
6
If the TPP is so wonderful, make it public. Every word of it.
And if the Republicans want so badly to pass it, they should remove poison pill additions like the one preventing trade action on climate change.
And if the Republicans want so badly to pass it, they should remove poison pill additions like the one preventing trade action on climate change.
6
"If the TPP is so wonderful, make it public. Every word of it."...What total nonsense. You can't make it public until it is completed. It should be obvious that any serious negotiations can't be carried out in a public forum. And it is ridiculous to keep claiming that it is being kept secret because it will be completely disclosed before it ever comes to a vote. The whole secrecy argument is a load of garbage.
1
If the ACA (Obama Care) is so wonderful, make it public so that the legislative branch can digest all the particulars and then decide to support it or not.
1
The TPP has very little impact on tariffs which are currently low. Passage of an unpublished secret agreement with the potential to circumvent our labor, environmental and safety laws while essentially giving multinational corporations overlord rights is a very very bad idea. This is the Democrats last stand to protect Americans and our belief in fundamental economic fairness; because otherwise we should all vote Republican. NAFTA didn't create American jobs and the TPP will not create American jobs, while we were fooled about NAFTA it is critical that we don't get fooled again.
8
An economy in a country where it is sometimes difficult to see clearly across a city street… is of no lasting consequence .. having abandoned their true nature
implosion threatens as an obvious end…… the attempt to absorb in total the
US as the last block to pablum globalism..raises serious ire in some… should that nerve continue to be bared…the result shall be truly dark… negotiated trade.. is a farce… akin to a price fix … core globalist mindset … and done along with unknown additives behind closed doors.. stinks of that which might come from a sub b grade spy flick… such cryptic sham
implosion threatens as an obvious end…… the attempt to absorb in total the
US as the last block to pablum globalism..raises serious ire in some… should that nerve continue to be bared…the result shall be truly dark… negotiated trade.. is a farce… akin to a price fix … core globalist mindset … and done along with unknown additives behind closed doors.. stinks of that which might come from a sub b grade spy flick… such cryptic sham
2
All the things we have to do in secret. The outrage aimed at the TPP is all about what people think is contained in the actual legislation because only the participants in the negotiations actually know what is in the legislation. The US government, as well as all the participating governments don't want the contents revealed until the treaty is a done-deal. Why? Simply because every participant gains something and they all give up something and none of it will be politically acceptable to their people.
So, we proceed with trying to get the legislatures to pass a treaty that has secret contents that will remain secret until the treaty becomes law.
Call it political theatre, but people in most nations are sick-and-tired of these deals. This isn't just US politics, it is the will of national leaders versus their own people. The goals may be noble, the treaty may well be the best thing since canned-beer (FWIW: I can slice my own bread like most people) but because it is wrapped in the cloak of secrecy few outside the negotiations trust the treaty.
So, we proceed with trying to get the legislatures to pass a treaty that has secret contents that will remain secret until the treaty becomes law.
Call it political theatre, but people in most nations are sick-and-tired of these deals. This isn't just US politics, it is the will of national leaders versus their own people. The goals may be noble, the treaty may well be the best thing since canned-beer (FWIW: I can slice my own bread like most people) but because it is wrapped in the cloak of secrecy few outside the negotiations trust the treaty.
8
I wish the media would stop referring to the President's successes and failures in terms of his "legacy", suggesting that's what's most important to him. I doubt that it is. The man, by his own lights, is trying to accomplish important objectives for his country. If his "legacy" were as prominent in his mind as the media would have it, then he would be less a man, less a President, than many of us have thought him. The use of the term diminishes a fine man, and a fine, however embattled, President.
3
Obama has no legacy. He made a lot of mistakes and let that guy Harry Reid ruin the Senate. History will show that he talked a good game but at the end of the day just could not deliver.
3
Obama's legacy is war, drone assassinations, covert operations, on one hand, support--like not since Herbert Hoover--for corporate wealth and multinationals via the restructuring of global trade, on the other. "Legacy" grates on one's democratic sensibilities, given his militarism and unified Rightist posture at home and abroad.
And yet, the whole discussion of the Pacific initiative. Of course, the shielding of corporations from environmental, environmental, and other wayward practices. Of course, gaining market penetration through enforced tariff reductions. Of course, outsourcing and consequent disadvantages to American labor. But these only scratch the surface.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), done for its own sake, is, more importantly, designed to accompany the military PIVOT to the Pacific, i.e., the containment of China, purposefully excluded from TPP membership, and from containment, ultimate isolation and, if possible, regime change and/or dismemberment. Obama is leading the US on a mammoth two front campaign, directed to both Russia and China, demonized with subtle hints of menacing communism, as though recalling the worst of the early Cold War.
Democrats don't get it. They object to the obvious, mired in their own parochial mindset, when in fact Obama is close to waging a war for world supremacy bar none. Outsourcing is imperialism lite; Obama is into imperialism heavy, the militarization of the global design.
And yet, the whole discussion of the Pacific initiative. Of course, the shielding of corporations from environmental, environmental, and other wayward practices. Of course, gaining market penetration through enforced tariff reductions. Of course, outsourcing and consequent disadvantages to American labor. But these only scratch the surface.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), done for its own sake, is, more importantly, designed to accompany the military PIVOT to the Pacific, i.e., the containment of China, purposefully excluded from TPP membership, and from containment, ultimate isolation and, if possible, regime change and/or dismemberment. Obama is leading the US on a mammoth two front campaign, directed to both Russia and China, demonized with subtle hints of menacing communism, as though recalling the worst of the early Cold War.
Democrats don't get it. They object to the obvious, mired in their own parochial mindset, when in fact Obama is close to waging a war for world supremacy bar none. Outsourcing is imperialism lite; Obama is into imperialism heavy, the militarization of the global design.
7
Overall, I'm an Obama supporter. The economy has definitely picked up a lot (as a small business owner, I have a very sensitive finger on that pulse). The ACA is excellent, though it needs to be pushed further. Strikes on ISIS, sanctions on Russia -- won't hear any arguments here.
However, this TPP is something I'm highly skeptical of, to say the least. While I understand the need for U.S. engagement in Asia and the Pacific, particularly to counter China's influence there, Mr. Obama hasn't "sold" me on this deal. That's because I don't know what it's a bout, and neither does anybody else. There's a possibility it MIGHT be good for the U.S.; on the other hand, it MIGHT be a disaster, too. Now he's expecting a snap decision on something that nobody even heard of before a few days ago?
The TPP may or may not be good. But the approach to it is ghastly. I'd grade most of Obama's moves as B+s with a few A-s and As thrown in; but this is a D-, if not an F.
However, this TPP is something I'm highly skeptical of, to say the least. While I understand the need for U.S. engagement in Asia and the Pacific, particularly to counter China's influence there, Mr. Obama hasn't "sold" me on this deal. That's because I don't know what it's a bout, and neither does anybody else. There's a possibility it MIGHT be good for the U.S.; on the other hand, it MIGHT be a disaster, too. Now he's expecting a snap decision on something that nobody even heard of before a few days ago?
The TPP may or may not be good. But the approach to it is ghastly. I'd grade most of Obama's moves as B+s with a few A-s and As thrown in; but this is a D-, if not an F.
7
By deliberately leaving China out, this economic relationship is designed precisely to be zero-sum.
But even that is not important (China will find a way around it either way). When Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz both point out TPP benefits only big corporations and screws American workers, well, what's become of Obama?
But even that is not important (China will find a way around it either way). When Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz both point out TPP benefits only big corporations and screws American workers, well, what's become of Obama?
7
At a minimum, the information made public should include the people who are working on it and their qualifications; what types of analyses are being done and how it is expected that the policy will affect the economy and people; and a broad outline of the areas addressed by the policy itself. It is mind boggling to me that a policy that will affect the US economy so deeply can be kept secret from the public for so long, and designed with no input from well known experts like Dr. Paul Krugman (none of whom have anything good to say about this treaty thus far).
6
RajS - "It is mind boggling to me that a policy that will affect the US economy so deeply can be kept secret from the public for so long..."
Very similar to the ACA where we had to pass it to know what was in it!
Very similar to the ACA where we had to pass it to know what was in it!
4
Maybe, just maybe the future isn't Asia at all....maybe they should be looking somewhere else....Asia is looking worse every day....Everybody assumed that Asia would give back what it was given, anybody see a problem?? Given that NAFTA resulted in a massive border crossing I'm skeptical that more free trade helps anything at all....We should take a page from China and secure our homeland, work harder to maintain it's integrity....
9
I so wanted to find a democratic leader that understood economics and had the strength to thwart off the Left Wing. When faced with the opportunity of the greatest piece of legislation since Social Security, Obama failed to negotiate and compromise with the moderate elements of the Republican Paty. This left us with a hollow healthcare reform. Now unable to negootiate and compromise with the 'Progressive' elements of his own party he exposes the US to being left out of the economic explosion occuring in the Assia Pacific.
When people talk of the Tea Party Republicans becooming irrelevant they should also look to the 'Progressive' Democrats. What they don't understand is that we have already lost the low cost manufactoring jobs to the 'emerging' nations. When Progressives cricize NAFTA they fail to understand what a great piece of legislation it was for the US. Our neighbor and Ally, Mexico, has become a world economic powerhouse becaue of NAFTA. We kept work at home and helped secure our boarders. If not to Mexico, those jobs were on their way to China or Korea.
I desperately need a social lliberal/fiscal conservative who I can vote for in our next election...... Don't see that person on the horizon...
When people talk of the Tea Party Republicans becooming irrelevant they should also look to the 'Progressive' Democrats. What they don't understand is that we have already lost the low cost manufactoring jobs to the 'emerging' nations. When Progressives cricize NAFTA they fail to understand what a great piece of legislation it was for the US. Our neighbor and Ally, Mexico, has become a world economic powerhouse becaue of NAFTA. We kept work at home and helped secure our boarders. If not to Mexico, those jobs were on their way to China or Korea.
I desperately need a social lliberal/fiscal conservative who I can vote for in our next election...... Don't see that person on the horizon...
2
Rumor has it that the deal in effect created a corporate-super polity with powers to trump those of elected governments.
True or not--let's hope that never happens. The present plutocracy is bad enough.
True or not--let's hope that never happens. The present plutocracy is bad enough.
9
Obama's legacy is already cast in stone. He will go down as the worst President in the history of the Republic. There is nothing he can do to change that.
8
To Orlando Cajun:
Even as I disagree with Obama about the use of secrecy from the American people on the TPP issue there is no comparison between Obama and the criminal of war who stole the presidential election in 2000, known as George W Bush. That Bush wins hands down as the worst president in history.
Even as I disagree with Obama about the use of secrecy from the American people on the TPP issue there is no comparison between Obama and the criminal of war who stole the presidential election in 2000, known as George W Bush. That Bush wins hands down as the worst president in history.
9
Even as I disagree with Obama about the use of secrecy from the American people on the ACA ( Obama Care)....to bring up Bush now is laughable. Get over it and hold your far left liberal Presidnt accountable
4
The call to "American leadership", without ensuring the benefits accrue to all Americans, exemplifies the shallow rhetoric that has hollowed out our middle class. It is essential that the people's interests (instead of moneyed interests) be at the heart of the trade-offs inherent in any strategic trade agreement and associated adjustments. The people's trusted representatives on these issues, such as Senators Warren and Schumer, should be at the negotiating table to help the President and Congress strike the right deal externally and in domestic adjustments.
12
The problem is we Americans do not have leadership at the helm..only 'hope and change" which has sequed into "WE hope he can make no change."
2
Yes, Bush was a true leader - he lead us gallantly into the Valley of Death
3
Obama's legacy was tarnished about 5 minutes after he took office. Given the chance by history to be an FDR, he has chosen to be Millard Fillmore. He came in promising change and then ran into the arms of the Hawks, Spies, Banksters and Wall Street.
He doubled down on Bush's failed and unwise policies in SW Asia, kept up the illegal spying, declared a Jihad on whistleblowers, bunted on healthcare, failed to prosecute one Bankster, bailed out the Banksters, failed to use the remaining TARP fund to clear the toxic assets and on and on and on.
The TPP, the TPIP and the TISA are turkeys- plain and simple. Progressives are not opposed to free trade as long as it is fair trade- something impossible with countries without roughly comparable wage and hour standards, not to mention environmental rules. They have very little to do with trade and are essentially wish lists of crap that cannot pass out political process on their own merit.
Representative Democracy cannot work with secret laws, secret courts, secret decisions and secret treaties. Obama has embraced these most undemocratic methods to enable his policies and has continued to tarnish our country in a manner only a little less awful than our first appointed President (GW Bush).
Obama has treated the Democratic caucus in both houses of Congress like erred boys that owe him something rather than potential partners working toward a shared goal. He cannot fade into history fast enough.
He doubled down on Bush's failed and unwise policies in SW Asia, kept up the illegal spying, declared a Jihad on whistleblowers, bunted on healthcare, failed to prosecute one Bankster, bailed out the Banksters, failed to use the remaining TARP fund to clear the toxic assets and on and on and on.
The TPP, the TPIP and the TISA are turkeys- plain and simple. Progressives are not opposed to free trade as long as it is fair trade- something impossible with countries without roughly comparable wage and hour standards, not to mention environmental rules. They have very little to do with trade and are essentially wish lists of crap that cannot pass out political process on their own merit.
Representative Democracy cannot work with secret laws, secret courts, secret decisions and secret treaties. Obama has embraced these most undemocratic methods to enable his policies and has continued to tarnish our country in a manner only a little less awful than our first appointed President (GW Bush).
Obama has treated the Democratic caucus in both houses of Congress like erred boys that owe him something rather than potential partners working toward a shared goal. He cannot fade into history fast enough.
15
David
Well said!!
Well said!!
9
Trade has overtaken the place of war as a means of global influence. Trade, in its current form, tells our partners that America is willing to sacrifice jobs and opportunity in order to help them raise their standard of living. War sacrifices lives. We see that neither has worked very well for us lately.
China is already flexing its muscle; their economy will eventually overtake ours. The TPP will slow them down, but will likely only serve as a
temporary stopgap. It remains to be seen if their influence will follow proportionally; like Mr. Bernstein, I doubt it.
With the TPP, what won't be stopped is the continual loss of American jobs as we race to meet the world's lowered standard of living. Perhaps that's inevitable regardless of how it turns out, but are we really willing to accept there are no better solutions?
The world is watching us self-destruct in stunning fashion. I'm in total agreement with Sen. Sanders - we need elected officials and business leaders to invest in and strengthen America and its workers. A good first step would be reprioritizing shareholder concern, a huge ask, but one that will be good for business, trade, and influence in the long run.
China is already flexing its muscle; their economy will eventually overtake ours. The TPP will slow them down, but will likely only serve as a
temporary stopgap. It remains to be seen if their influence will follow proportionally; like Mr. Bernstein, I doubt it.
With the TPP, what won't be stopped is the continual loss of American jobs as we race to meet the world's lowered standard of living. Perhaps that's inevitable regardless of how it turns out, but are we really willing to accept there are no better solutions?
The world is watching us self-destruct in stunning fashion. I'm in total agreement with Sen. Sanders - we need elected officials and business leaders to invest in and strengthen America and its workers. A good first step would be reprioritizing shareholder concern, a huge ask, but one that will be good for business, trade, and influence in the long run.
12
This president will have the legacy of trying to work with the most obstructionist republican party in history who on day one of his inauguration plotted over a secret dinner to have him fail at every turn. Despite Mitch McConnels cry "to make Obama a one term president", and republicans trying to block his every good idea, Barack Obamas legacy will be he was one of our better presidents.
7
You are aware it was Democrats who "Obstructed" the President on TPP, right?
4
He did not need any help with his botchery. He was born to it.
4
Obama used all his political capital and lies on ACA. Following massive jobs losses internationally for decades no one is going to "trust him" again on what they perceive is a risky gamble likely to lose more US jobs. Even his former cohorts in the House, are running from him. 2016 is gonna look a lot like 2007 - 08 when Gore couldn't run away from Clinton fast enough. TPP is what Democrats have to look forward to in the future. Nothing done.
8
The economic argument for free trade is sound. Unfortunately, Washington has passed these agreements and then left American workers to fend for themselves...often just leaving a generation of workers in certain industries with no where to go. More robust transitional programs to assist displaced workers would have gone a long way toward making free trade an easier sell.
4
We live in a world where citing a recorded statement in which a member of the state department talks with the ambassador about who should go in to the post-coup Ukraine government is a "conspiracy theory"....
and in which secret negotiations for transnational corporate hegemony which emasculate the Bill of Rights are about "jobs."
This truly is the Empire of Lies.
and in which secret negotiations for transnational corporate hegemony which emasculate the Bill of Rights are about "jobs."
This truly is the Empire of Lies.
8
Just the fact alone that no one is allowed to see the specifics of this trade deal - in other words, backroom dealings all over again - makes this deal suspect. If it's so great and the American people/workers would benefit, why not tout the specifics, instead of spouting rhetoric and talk about "legacy?" We should not agree to a bad deal in order for the President to cement his legacy. That's his priority these days it seems...
17
The U.S. has signed a number of "free trade" agreements during the last two or three decades and during that span of time our negative trade balance has grown more negative. During the same period, the pillaging of the economy by the ultra-wealthy has intensified. Indeed, those two phenomena are inextricably intertwined. The beggaring of the middle and lower classes today continues relentlessly as the ultra-rich become yet richer and use their wealth to influence, nay determine, election results that ensure only their interests are represented in our federal and state governments.
Now the president who promised transparency wants us to support yet another much grander free trade agreement, one created in top secrecy by, well, we really don't know. Rumors are it was/is a group of corporations and their lobbyists who now enjoy full access to the TPP document no one else can see. What we hear about its contents indicates the TPP will accelerate America's ongoing conversion from democracy to corporatocracy, and further enrich the already rich by beggaring everyone else to pay for their corporate welfare.
Should we the peons—excuse me, we the people—help our obviously corporate and wannabe elitist president ensure his legacy with a TPP deal that will doom this country from the bottom up? How soon can we vote for Bernie Sanders?
Now the president who promised transparency wants us to support yet another much grander free trade agreement, one created in top secrecy by, well, we really don't know. Rumors are it was/is a group of corporations and their lobbyists who now enjoy full access to the TPP document no one else can see. What we hear about its contents indicates the TPP will accelerate America's ongoing conversion from democracy to corporatocracy, and further enrich the already rich by beggaring everyone else to pay for their corporate welfare.
Should we the peons—excuse me, we the people—help our obviously corporate and wannabe elitist president ensure his legacy with a TPP deal that will doom this country from the bottom up? How soon can we vote for Bernie Sanders?
14
What has happened ever slowly but which is obvious now, is the conflation of corporate interests and national security interests. Obama has become a nightmare neo-con. We should have known.
I applaud the unions for their work to deflate TPP's sails.
Next up, where is Hillary in all of this? She told us that she is holding her opinion,. So we told her we'll hold our vote.
If Mr Obama, wanted to have this bill passed, he should have gotten in front of this mess and explained it all chapter, and verse to ALL the citizens that he governs and represents. Instead, he has left American families huddled adrift untied from their moorings to the homeland in the name of corporate security.
I applaud the unions for their work to deflate TPP's sails.
Next up, where is Hillary in all of this? She told us that she is holding her opinion,. So we told her we'll hold our vote.
If Mr Obama, wanted to have this bill passed, he should have gotten in front of this mess and explained it all chapter, and verse to ALL the citizens that he governs and represents. Instead, he has left American families huddled adrift untied from their moorings to the homeland in the name of corporate security.
14
It is only a good deal if it means workers standard of living rises so they can buy our goods, have sewer systems & treatment, clean water, regular electricity, safe working environment that meets our standards. A race to the bottom is not acceptable.
Profits come back here are taxed so the USA benefits not an over paid employee called a CEO.
Profits come back here are taxed so the USA benefits not an over paid employee called a CEO.
9
It take issue with the headline, "Obama’s Bid to Shape Legacy With Trade Deal Falters." It implies that President Obama is primarily motivated by a desire to shape his own legacy so that he will look favorable to historians. There is no evidence to ascribe such motivation to him, and there is a big difference between that and being motivated by a desire to leave a legacy of peace and prosperity through this trade agreement, as described in the story itself.
3
Zombie alert.
1
Republicans want it so you know that it would be a disaster for 99% of Americans. That is all we need to know.
7
Corporations who are already cheating the nation by parking cash offshore untaxed while benefiting from our highly reliable commercial law environment, our banking & financial system, infrastructure and implied military power.
They were invited to participate directly in negotiations and setting priorities. Regular Americans as well as our elected officials excluded out right and in the case of elected officials cannot share what little they do know.
They were invited to participate directly in negotiations and setting priorities. Regular Americans as well as our elected officials excluded out right and in the case of elected officials cannot share what little they do know.
13
A president's legacy is for history to determine, looking in retrospect at what they did in real time for whatever reasons -- a president's legacy is not like something drawn up in a will, I don't think, where it's up to the testator to determine prospectively.
7
Regardless of what happens with this treaty, the president's "legacy" now includes trying to slip a corporate sweetheart deal past the very people he purports to represent. Even if it squeaks by on the second attempt, his legacy is tarnished.
Any secret deal supported by Paul Ryan, I'm against.
Any secret deal supported by Paul Ryan, I'm against.
30
obama has a legacy, probably not what he envisioned but what his personality allowed.
10
Fearful protectionism has never saved American jobs.
We cannot help our economy by putting up barriers, and protectionism does not suddenly become a good argument just because we are more worried than usual these days about middle-class jobs.
We cannot help our economy by putting up barriers, and protectionism does not suddenly become a good argument just because we are more worried than usual these days about middle-class jobs.
3
Why do you think that requiring that trading partners come up to our work place safety standards is protection. Letting them reduce costs by killing and maiming workers who have no disability or health care is not fair competition. Same for societies who fail to invest in infrastructure such as water and sewage treatment. Public electricity, clean air and water.
Tariffs serve to level the playing field.
Allowing firms to deduct expenses of off shoring jobs and offload costs of retraining on taxpayers. Or borrowing money to pay dividends, buy back shares, pay fines, pay bonuses, etc. and deduct interest expense from taxable income when plenty of cash is parked off shore untaxed.
Tax laws need fixing to eliminate these scams.
Tariffs serve to level the playing field.
Allowing firms to deduct expenses of off shoring jobs and offload costs of retraining on taxpayers. Or borrowing money to pay dividends, buy back shares, pay fines, pay bonuses, etc. and deduct interest expense from taxable income when plenty of cash is parked off shore untaxed.
Tax laws need fixing to eliminate these scams.
7
But we can allow the importation of thousands of tech sweatshop workers with our new "give it all away" visas that help show more of the middle class out on the streets looking for work.
7
From the piece: "But some on the left argue that..."
Making it seem that this treaty alarms only "the left" is very cynical and dishonest journalism. The removal from American elected representatives of their power to legislate, and transferring it to "international commerce tribunals" is something that MOST US citizens find not only disturbing, but treasonous.
Making it seem that this treaty alarms only "the left" is very cynical and dishonest journalism. The removal from American elected representatives of their power to legislate, and transferring it to "international commerce tribunals" is something that MOST US citizens find not only disturbing, but treasonous.
28
Agree 1000%
5
Our president and congress is saying to America: "Trust us!" America is hearing: "Trust us?" Well, we don't. They've been lying about the positive impact of these trade deals and all the other aspects of free market economic theory for forty years. Twenty three years ago they gave us NAFTA. Nineteen years ago they gave us the World Trade Organization. Fifteen years ago they gave us China unleashed. Ever since, our averaged GDP growth has been 40% less than it was prior to selling our souls to the corporatist devils. The trade deficits have totaled over seven trillion dollars. The job losses have been crippling. And the ability to manage our own affairs has been relinquished to a nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucracy in Europe who tells us that we can no longer place country of origin labels on meat, et al.
There is no data that can back up the claims of the cheerleaders of these agreements and when we ask for such all we are ever given is a retelling of the theory.
In my twenty five years of closely following these deals, I have concluded that the elected leaders who vote for them are either stupid or corrupt. Why else would they present the current deal to us in the form of a secret that they can't tell us until we say yes to whatever is in the box?
That a vote is being waged on this premise is idiotic and tells you how dumb the American people are for accepting it and how cynical the American establishment is for proposing it.
There is no data that can back up the claims of the cheerleaders of these agreements and when we ask for such all we are ever given is a retelling of the theory.
In my twenty five years of closely following these deals, I have concluded that the elected leaders who vote for them are either stupid or corrupt. Why else would they present the current deal to us in the form of a secret that they can't tell us until we say yes to whatever is in the box?
That a vote is being waged on this premise is idiotic and tells you how dumb the American people are for accepting it and how cynical the American establishment is for proposing it.
24
Democrats may have saved Obama from himself. If the TPP is about trade rather than a power grab by corporations, and it is good for the American economy as a whole, then why is it secret? The leaks suggest that free trade is secondary to giving corporations veto power over democracy. This is another 'grand bargain' that no progressive would want as a legacy.
21
There are both good and bad things in the proposed TPP. What’s important now is to fix the bad things and find a way to move the TPP forward. Bernie Sanders’ call to drop the treaty implies throwing out the baby with the bath water and renounce American leadership and influence. Hillary Clinton got it right by asking President Obama to listen to Nancy Pelosi and his opponents in the Democratic Party, fix what’s wrong with the current proposal and then help push for its approval. What’s wrong is allowing industry lobbyists to help design the treaty in secrecy. What’s wrong is to sacrifice American judicial independence, to allow the greedy pharmaceutical industry to keep maximizing its profits at the expense of everybody else, to offer cuts in Medicare to pay for trade-related matters (what does Medicare have to do with it?), to limit access to generic and less expensive drugs, to define intellectual property rights in ways multinational corporations want, and to exclude from the treaty the kinds of provisions that will benefit American workers. President Obama can now use his defeat in Congress to put pressure on other countries negotiating the TPP to agree on fixing what’s wrong with the treaty and get a TPP that will be good for American leadership, for the American people, for shared economic development, for the trans-Pacific alliance and for America’s partners abroad as well.
4
Corporate "free trade" is all bath water.
2
The TPP would hurt jobs, consumers, and the environment.
It lets corporations get compensated for a country's labor, consumer and environmental laws on the theory that they'd make more profit without those laws.
Corporations can get arbitration through the TPP; labor, consumer, and environmental groups can't.
It lets corporations get compensated for a country's labor, consumer and environmental laws on the theory that they'd make more profit without those laws.
Corporations can get arbitration through the TPP; labor, consumer, and environmental groups can't.
14
When you talk about a legacy, you are really talking about something of value, and in Mr. Obama's case, he really has no legacy at all. He has nothing to hand down. Obamacare, even, was the result of Ms. Pelosi. He did very little, if anything, on that score. So, what is there of value? The TPP is an unknown quantity and quality. Are we supposed to make a conclusion about his legacy on the basis of nothing? The fact is that there is nothing wrong with negotiating a trade or a truce or anything and Congress having only the ability to vote for or against it, but we expect more from the President in terms of asserting our economic values abroad and not katowing to the Corporate State from which it is assumed he expects to make a bundle in retirement, much in the same way that Clinton did with NAFTA. Pathetic!
9
This is a time to do a counter balancing deal with the Republicans to push through a big infrastructure program putting people to work fixing bridges, roads, parks rivers dams, swamps, leveys etc. this would dwarf jobs shifted. And fix the tax refugees at the same time. Get busy, Nancy.
Under no circumstances should we sell ourselves out, but Ms. Pelosi is on target here in terms of trying to get the kind of legislation that you are talking about passed in return for granting fast track. Hopefully, she will be successful, but it is unlikely that the Republicans will bite that bullet, especially when they know that when the actual agreement comes back they will not have the votes to pass it. Hmmm!
Why is the NY Time's focus always on "Obama's legacy" as if this is some kind of personal issue rather than a national debate about the value of a secretive trade deal and it's potential impact on American workers?
17
The problem with the TPP is very simple. It is not a paartnership between the peoples of those 12 countries on both sides of the Pacific, the just plain ordinary people who work for a living there, but of their big cororations and their ruling elites. And its purpose is also very simple; to more profitably exploit the labor of the former by the latter.
12
This is a rare time that Mr. Obama has bet on the stupidiy of the American public and lost. His success in railroading Obamacare through congress without the public knowing, or our elected representatives caring about its content, emboldened him to take the same approach with the TPP. No deal this time.
Puzzling though is Mr. Obama's continued smug confidence as he continues to chide us all for not understanding how good this bill would be for us. His apparent lack of understanding for the need for basic public courtesy and communication is kind of scary.
Puzzling though is Mr. Obama's continued smug confidence as he continues to chide us all for not understanding how good this bill would be for us. His apparent lack of understanding for the need for basic public courtesy and communication is kind of scary.
11
Legacy, schmegacy. If the White House wants a lasting legacy, do two things right now:
1. Offer single payer health insurance coverage to everyone through expansion of Medicare, paid for in part by raising a new corporate tax on overseas revenues;
2. Redraw college loans to charge the exact same interest as the bank exchange rate. Families and individuals are drowning in debt in large part because of interest charges that are well above mortgage rates, borrowing rates generally, and especially the rates banks charge each other.
Obama needs to recognize that on the TPP, he was riding the wrong horse.
1. Offer single payer health insurance coverage to everyone through expansion of Medicare, paid for in part by raising a new corporate tax on overseas revenues;
2. Redraw college loans to charge the exact same interest as the bank exchange rate. Families and individuals are drowning in debt in large part because of interest charges that are well above mortgage rates, borrowing rates generally, and especially the rates banks charge each other.
Obama needs to recognize that on the TPP, he was riding the wrong horse.
8
It was a way to leave behind a positive legacy abroad, one that could be measured, he hoped, by the number of lives improved rather than by the number of bodies left behind.
-------------------------------------
The metric is number of union jobs that will be lost in this country as a result of this trade deal. It was a zero-sum game: Obama's loss is Union's victory. The fact that the lawmakers have to provide for assistance to displaced workers is an admission by this president and the Congress that jobs WILL BE LOST in this deal as they would be under ANY deal with international asymmetrical partners like Mexico, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
Obama may be doing the wrong sales pitch by bringing up China as a boogeyman: "We need to do this to stymie China's influence in the pacific region" is not as persuasive as "We need to do this to create and keep jobs in this country and to promote wellbeing of Americans".
The unease I see is not so much with wanting to contain China by creating partnerships with other countries in that region as with the admission implied in the assistance bill (for displaced workers) that jobs will be lost in this country.
Changing the minds of 90 Dems to get the TPA passed is going to be a Sisyphean task. And if the Supremes strike down the federal subsidies to those buying insurance on Federal marketplace, Obama will be a forlorn man.
-------------------------------------
The metric is number of union jobs that will be lost in this country as a result of this trade deal. It was a zero-sum game: Obama's loss is Union's victory. The fact that the lawmakers have to provide for assistance to displaced workers is an admission by this president and the Congress that jobs WILL BE LOST in this deal as they would be under ANY deal with international asymmetrical partners like Mexico, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
Obama may be doing the wrong sales pitch by bringing up China as a boogeyman: "We need to do this to stymie China's influence in the pacific region" is not as persuasive as "We need to do this to create and keep jobs in this country and to promote wellbeing of Americans".
The unease I see is not so much with wanting to contain China by creating partnerships with other countries in that region as with the admission implied in the assistance bill (for displaced workers) that jobs will be lost in this country.
Changing the minds of 90 Dems to get the TPA passed is going to be a Sisyphean task. And if the Supremes strike down the federal subsidies to those buying insurance on Federal marketplace, Obama will be a forlorn man.
5
"It was a way to leave behind a positive legacy abroad, one that could be measured, he hoped, by the number of lives improved"
Our Dear Leader seems more interested in improving the lives of non-Americans than those of Americans. His normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba will have a far greater impact on Cubans than it will on Americans while his nuclear deal with the mad mullahs of Iran will have far more effect on Iranians than on Americans.
Our Dear Leader seems more interested in improving the lives of non-Americans than those of Americans. His normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba will have a far greater impact on Cubans than it will on Americans while his nuclear deal with the mad mullahs of Iran will have far more effect on Iranians than on Americans.
1
Disappointing strategic error on the part of House Democrats.
Mr. Huntsman, a former ambassador to China with extensive experience and knowledge of the region, has an accurate assessment of the consequences of this legislation's pending failure. Without TPP, China, which thrives on economic diplomacy, will benefit greatly from the stated "influence vacuum."
While House Democrats may consider this a small victory for the American worker--even though, in the big picture, their votes arguably hurt the American economy--the real winner here is China. As someone who studies China professionally and personally, I can assure there is no shortage of congratulations and wishful thinking as Beijing watches intently the progress (Or lack thereof) of TPP negotiations.
We have protected a stable, prosperous, and peaceful Asia-Pacific now for decades, and however delicately US leaders may put it, Beijing aims to change that order. Our absence in the region will only ensure that is accomplished through aggressive vehicles that contradict not only our values and interests, but everyone else's as well.
Mr. Huntsman, a former ambassador to China with extensive experience and knowledge of the region, has an accurate assessment of the consequences of this legislation's pending failure. Without TPP, China, which thrives on economic diplomacy, will benefit greatly from the stated "influence vacuum."
While House Democrats may consider this a small victory for the American worker--even though, in the big picture, their votes arguably hurt the American economy--the real winner here is China. As someone who studies China professionally and personally, I can assure there is no shortage of congratulations and wishful thinking as Beijing watches intently the progress (Or lack thereof) of TPP negotiations.
We have protected a stable, prosperous, and peaceful Asia-Pacific now for decades, and however delicately US leaders may put it, Beijing aims to change that order. Our absence in the region will only ensure that is accomplished through aggressive vehicles that contradict not only our values and interests, but everyone else's as well.
1
Again, Democrats are trying to destroy this President's legacy. Democrats voted for trade agreements pushed by white Presidents, Democrats voted for NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT pushed by Clinton, Democrats gave white Presidents fast track authority. But now Democrats are rejecting President Obama's trade agreement. Just as Republicans were racist in not supporting the President's policies during his first term, Democrats are racist in not supporting the President's policies in his second term.
And Hillary was a coward in not supporting the President on this trade agreement (after Democrats supported her husband on NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT. I hope President Obama throws Hillary under the bus during this presidential campaign. I hope President Obama talks about Hillary's emails and how it violated his administration's policies and promises of transparency.
And Hillary was a coward in not supporting the President on this trade agreement (after Democrats supported her husband on NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT. I hope President Obama throws Hillary under the bus during this presidential campaign. I hope President Obama talks about Hillary's emails and how it violated his administration's policies and promises of transparency.
Remember the theme of Bill Clinton's campaign? It's the economy, stupid. His legacy is NAFTA - the source of billions more imports and millions more lost jobs.
Barack Obama's theme was the economy - hope and change. He wants his legacy to be TPP - more imports, more lost jobs.
Politicians give speeches in the countries that benefit from one-sided trade with the USA and take home millions in direct pay or in the personal piggy-banks they call foundations. They denounce critics as protectionists. They and their progeny are secure for centuries, while we are unsure of our future for the next few years.
Free trade promotors need to answer OUR questions: what did NAFTA do to the working class, the middle class? Show us reports on jobs created and jobs lost. For jobs created, what is the pay, what if any fringe benefits are offered? What is the status of workers in offices and the production floor who lost their jobs due to free trade deals? Does anyone inside the Beltway or in state capitols or the media care?
Does anyone in government want to compare the handful of jobs created by NAFTA with the thousands of closed factories and the millions of lost jobs?
Ross Perot said NAFTA would create a giant sucking sound as jobs left the USA. He was right. What would Perot say about TPP?
To our politicians: Tell us the truth about TPP. Show us the truth about the effects of NAFTA. We can handle the truth…….it’s our politicians who can’t hand us the truth.
Barack Obama's theme was the economy - hope and change. He wants his legacy to be TPP - more imports, more lost jobs.
Politicians give speeches in the countries that benefit from one-sided trade with the USA and take home millions in direct pay or in the personal piggy-banks they call foundations. They denounce critics as protectionists. They and their progeny are secure for centuries, while we are unsure of our future for the next few years.
Free trade promotors need to answer OUR questions: what did NAFTA do to the working class, the middle class? Show us reports on jobs created and jobs lost. For jobs created, what is the pay, what if any fringe benefits are offered? What is the status of workers in offices and the production floor who lost their jobs due to free trade deals? Does anyone inside the Beltway or in state capitols or the media care?
Does anyone in government want to compare the handful of jobs created by NAFTA with the thousands of closed factories and the millions of lost jobs?
Ross Perot said NAFTA would create a giant sucking sound as jobs left the USA. He was right. What would Perot say about TPP?
To our politicians: Tell us the truth about TPP. Show us the truth about the effects of NAFTA. We can handle the truth…….it’s our politicians who can’t hand us the truth.
9
President Clinton's legacy also includes the disastrous repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the deregulation of the banking and financial industries, the refusal to regulate those industries and the refusal to enforce labor laws.
3
Good points. We can say he was at least consistent: he was almost always aligned with billionaires. Good planning on his part. The Clintons could have returned to their roots and a simple life after leaving the White House as Harry and Bess Truman did. Instead, Clinton Inc. amassed a substantial fortune based on his "legacy". Will Obama Inc. aim for a fortune greater than the Clintons?
Grateful working people can offer a handshake and a thank you.
CEOs and billionaires can offer a handshake and several hundred thousand dollars.
Grateful working people can offer a handshake and a thank you.
CEOs and billionaires can offer a handshake and several hundred thousand dollars.
Another headline to mislead readers - feed the hater frenzy {and sell papers.}
Like most 'front page' stories the NYT shamelessly adds a unrelated jab to Obama claiming his legacy is at stake ... not the fact he believes the 'world economy' needs a different strategy in Asia. Right or wrong!
Apparently if adding a little juice sells more papers ... who cares if the headline is out of context with reality.
Like most 'front page' stories the NYT shamelessly adds a unrelated jab to Obama claiming his legacy is at stake ... not the fact he believes the 'world economy' needs a different strategy in Asia. Right or wrong!
Apparently if adding a little juice sells more papers ... who cares if the headline is out of context with reality.
2
Secret trade negotiations happen in Canada too. Its wrong and what do they have to hide? Our respective leaders had promised open and accountable government but have not delivered on this.
Also wrong is forcing lower wage expectations, hiring temporary foreign workers, shipping jobs to third world countries and reinforcing the corporate oligarchy that runs our governments and have hijacked the democratic process.
I hope Mr Obama succeeds generally but not on TPP and not in secret.
This the race to the bottom and will not end well, especially for the wealthy because the poor don't really have much to left to take away but ultimately everyone will be hurt.
Corporate profit is necessary but we are well past the point where these companies expect to fire local workers and yet still expect them to buy their products. Is that the basis for sound economic community progress?
Any citizen that buys into this gets what they deserve but really, everyone is hurt.
Also wrong is forcing lower wage expectations, hiring temporary foreign workers, shipping jobs to third world countries and reinforcing the corporate oligarchy that runs our governments and have hijacked the democratic process.
I hope Mr Obama succeeds generally but not on TPP and not in secret.
This the race to the bottom and will not end well, especially for the wealthy because the poor don't really have much to left to take away but ultimately everyone will be hurt.
Corporate profit is necessary but we are well past the point where these companies expect to fire local workers and yet still expect them to buy their products. Is that the basis for sound economic community progress?
Any citizen that buys into this gets what they deserve but really, everyone is hurt.
8
I have found the Times's coverage of the TPP extraordinarily frustrating. You present the claims of supporters and opponents, but not the information that would support or debunk those claims. What information supports the objections of Warren et al? What information supports the Administration position? How about less repetition of claims and posturing, and more actual information?
9
"You present the claims of supporters and opponents, but not the information that would support or debunk those claims"
I would imagine that is because it has been classified TOP SECRET.
I would imagine that is because it has been classified TOP SECRET.
2
I wrote the first resolution against the TPP which was passed by the California Democratic Party albeit with reservations. Now Chairman John Burton sends e-mails opposing it. Labor did its job - it protected American workers. And as long as Investor-State Dispute Resolution allows corporations to overrule governments this agreement or any enabling legislation has any business being passed by the legislature.
5
So what else is new? Mr. Obama in no longer considered POTUS has been a lame duck for over a year now. His legacy will be John Kerry's incompetence, Syrian deaths, Somalian refugees, giving Iran the nuke, jeopardizing our relationship with our only true friend in the Middle East, a failed healthcare system...am I leaving anything out?
I for one look forward to seeing Obama back where he belongs, organizing a community.
I for one look forward to seeing Obama back where he belongs, organizing a community.
6
After we were burned by NAFTA, after we've seen our jobs disappear and not return, after so many of us have lived through long bouts of unemployment and gone through our savings I don't see how any politician in his or her right mind could think that any employee, save for those whose jobs are not endangered or who have golden parachutes, would welcome this.
As part of the later born baby boom generation I've seen us live through not being able find entry level jobs when we graduated from high school or college, not be able to save because salaries stagnated, lose our jobs, go bankrupt due to the high costs of medical care, all while hearing how America is a great place to live. Yeah, it's great if you're wealthy but if you're working or middle class, forget about it. Almost everyone I know born later than 1952 is having the same problem staying afloat whether we save or not.
In order to have savings we need things to be somewhat predictable. It's very hard to accomplish anything when your job can disappear at a moment's notice, you can't find another one, or worse. America has catered to big businesses for far too long and given citizens short shrift. No one who works hard for a living should be told to, in effect, drop dead because no one wants to pay a decent wage for a decent day's work. But many of us have been told just that and it's very disheartening.
As part of the later born baby boom generation I've seen us live through not being able find entry level jobs when we graduated from high school or college, not be able to save because salaries stagnated, lose our jobs, go bankrupt due to the high costs of medical care, all while hearing how America is a great place to live. Yeah, it's great if you're wealthy but if you're working or middle class, forget about it. Almost everyone I know born later than 1952 is having the same problem staying afloat whether we save or not.
In order to have savings we need things to be somewhat predictable. It's very hard to accomplish anything when your job can disappear at a moment's notice, you can't find another one, or worse. America has catered to big businesses for far too long and given citizens short shrift. No one who works hard for a living should be told to, in effect, drop dead because no one wants to pay a decent wage for a decent day's work. But many of us have been told just that and it's very disheartening.
22
This agreement was all about corporations using the treaty process to achieve what they can't via domestic legislation, because what they want is so unpopular that they know they'll never get it.
32
Correct. This is not a free 'trade' treaty; this is a 'free to move my capital all over the world at a moment's notice and be protected by the might of the US Govt.' treaty. Its about 'harmonization' of intellectual property and the ability for corporates to go shopping for regulation wherever they are the most lax.
6
So corporate "free trade" creates its own self-fulfilling prophesy. Our leaders negotiate an agreement in secret which everyone knows will further enrich corporations and the rich and further impoverish working and middle class Americans, an agreement the People don't want and have never wanted. Since our leaders negotiated the deal, however, we will lose face and there supposedly will be dire consequences if the wishes of the People are actually honored for once. We are, therefore, supposed to knuckle under and gag down more of the same "free trade" medicine which has already wreaked so much havoc in our economy. Sorry, I don't buy it. It's time for our self-appointed elites to remind themselves that the best interests of the country as a whole must come first and that our approach to trade must be reconsidered with that principle in mind.
13
It's always difficult to figure out what the Democrat politicians are committed to, since they can't focus on what's important and they so often sell-out on their promises. However, the Republican politicians are extremely candid in their objectives.
Obama has always acted as if he really doesn't want to join a team. While he made a lot of promises to get himself elected, he not only hasn't made any plays for the Democrat electorate, he has actively thrown games for the Republicans. Indeed, his signature achievement was getting the Republican health care plan passed. Now everyone is stuck with higher prices and lower quality services, and the insurance companies are even richer than they were before.
It almost doesn't matter anymore. But if Obama really wanted to do something for the people who voted for him, he would take a look around and see which way the wind is blowing.
Here's a big clue: All of the Republicans are for this secret trade deal.
Maybe the Democrat politicians should take a meeting at the White House and give Obama the facts of life.
Obama has always acted as if he really doesn't want to join a team. While he made a lot of promises to get himself elected, he not only hasn't made any plays for the Democrat electorate, he has actively thrown games for the Republicans. Indeed, his signature achievement was getting the Republican health care plan passed. Now everyone is stuck with higher prices and lower quality services, and the insurance companies are even richer than they were before.
It almost doesn't matter anymore. But if Obama really wanted to do something for the people who voted for him, he would take a look around and see which way the wind is blowing.
Here's a big clue: All of the Republicans are for this secret trade deal.
Maybe the Democrat politicians should take a meeting at the White House and give Obama the facts of life.
18
Actually, Obama has always wanted to join the 0.01 Team. He'll succeed.
2
" if Obama really wanted to do something for the people who voted for him, he would take a look around and see which way the wind is blowing."
He seems far more interested in doing "something" for Cubans and Iranians than for Americans.
He seems far more interested in doing "something" for Cubans and Iranians than for Americans.
1
I think this just shows again that Obama is a pretty bad politican. Visionary? Yes. Orator? Yes. Leader? Kindof. Politican? Not even close.
The secrecy and "I'll do it myself" strategic he constantly undertakes has finally come back to bite him, even within his own party!
The secrecy and "I'll do it myself" strategic he constantly undertakes has finally come back to bite him, even within his own party!
13
As I read this piece in The Times, once again, I feel it tilts toward the establishment view.
It leaves the reader thinking that the TPP would be an economic boon, but begs the question, "For whom?"
Shame on The Times.
It leaves the reader thinking that the TPP would be an economic boon, but begs the question, "For whom?"
Shame on The Times.
28
OH NOES! It's the "look out here comes China" AND the Heritage Foundation all in one article. I had to look twice to make sure it wasn't the Wall Street Journal.
Pater, TPP is a disaster and we're all on to it. The leaked sections are horrifying. The entire treaty is just an enormous giveaway to big pharma, Hollywood, and Apple. Kill it now, burn its corpse, and salt the earth.
Pater, TPP is a disaster and we're all on to it. The leaked sections are horrifying. The entire treaty is just an enormous giveaway to big pharma, Hollywood, and Apple. Kill it now, burn its corpse, and salt the earth.
16
This deal needs to be made public before Congress agrees to tie its hands and be unable to amend any portion of it.
If this deal has so much opposition now when the details are secret, one can only imagine what the opposition will be when the details become known.
If this deal has so much opposition now when the details are secret, one can only imagine what the opposition will be when the details become known.
20
I found the vote amazing and inspiring, because I thought Congress would cave.
Obama’s legacy is the ACA, and I think he deserves great credit for taking up the issue of health insurance; it was long overdue. I’d add that as I remember it, many Democrats were skeptical of the ACA, but went along with it, because it was seen as an important first step in transitioning to a better, more sensible, more rational healthcare system. No one thought it would become woven into the fabric of America or exist in its present form for decades to come, but it was the best that could be done at the time. (What happened was that the administration later claimed that the whole law hung together as one so that with any change, the whole thing would collapse.) Still, he will be remembered as the father of modern American healthcare whatever happens next, and that’s a legacy to be proud of.
Obama’s legacy is the ACA, and I think he deserves great credit for taking up the issue of health insurance; it was long overdue. I’d add that as I remember it, many Democrats were skeptical of the ACA, but went along with it, because it was seen as an important first step in transitioning to a better, more sensible, more rational healthcare system. No one thought it would become woven into the fabric of America or exist in its present form for decades to come, but it was the best that could be done at the time. (What happened was that the administration later claimed that the whole law hung together as one so that with any change, the whole thing would collapse.) Still, he will be remembered as the father of modern American healthcare whatever happens next, and that’s a legacy to be proud of.
3
Hint: The insurance companies loved it. So what does that tell you?
1
Too bad for Obama he didn't have Pelosi on his side stating “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"
11
How can we believe Obama when he says TPP is good for you?? Remember Obama promised during his campaign that he will renegotiate NAFTA? After the election, it was leaked out that he told a foreign official that he intended to do "nothing of the sort."
Also remember Obama said "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?" It turned out not at all. You had to buy the more expensive insurance with all the more costly bells and whistles forced on you.
Or, he promised he would tie his "shoe laces" and march with unions when he is prez? Not a peep from this fighter for unions in the Wisconsin Scott Walker fight. etc. etc.
Many people still do not realize that Obama is a smooth talker. He will say anything to get what he wants. It boggles the mind that people still believe in him just because he is the "president." This is one of the most damaging DINO betrayers in the history of U.S., engaging on the very attacks on 99% that we did NOT elect him for. The blame also lies on a Corporate Media owned by the 1% that does not give the correct story or properly report on the most important issues of our day (eg. TPP).
Everyone, Fast Track can still pass if they modify and pass TAA. There will be a vote again this week. If TAA passes, FastTrack passes. Call your rep and ask them to vote "No on Fast Track" AND "No on TAA WHATEVER changes are made to TAA." Your children's future depend on it. We need to fight back against the attacks on the 99% by Obama.
Also remember Obama said "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?" It turned out not at all. You had to buy the more expensive insurance with all the more costly bells and whistles forced on you.
Or, he promised he would tie his "shoe laces" and march with unions when he is prez? Not a peep from this fighter for unions in the Wisconsin Scott Walker fight. etc. etc.
Many people still do not realize that Obama is a smooth talker. He will say anything to get what he wants. It boggles the mind that people still believe in him just because he is the "president." This is one of the most damaging DINO betrayers in the history of U.S., engaging on the very attacks on 99% that we did NOT elect him for. The blame also lies on a Corporate Media owned by the 1% that does not give the correct story or properly report on the most important issues of our day (eg. TPP).
Everyone, Fast Track can still pass if they modify and pass TAA. There will be a vote again this week. If TAA passes, FastTrack passes. Call your rep and ask them to vote "No on Fast Track" AND "No on TAA WHATEVER changes are made to TAA." Your children's future depend on it. We need to fight back against the attacks on the 99% by Obama.
24
Liberalized trade policies in the Pacific Rim are essential to preserving America's leadership role in the world. The world's focus shifted to the Pacific 10-15 years ago while the US spent all of its time on the Middle East. The vote on Friday to not grant President Obama fast track approval has left most of the world scratching their head (most of all the Chinese). The fast track approval only gives Obama the power to negotiate a deal. Congress still has to ratify the bill with an up or down vote. Without fast track approval it is impossible for negotiators to exert any leverage. I don't like everything in the bill, but overall, we need better access to many of the markets in the Pacific Rim. States like Washington, Oregon, and California all depend on these markets for their agricultural exports.
10
I have not fully made up my mind on PTP, but as a resident of California, I don't want to promote more exports of water-intensive agricultural products. Rice, almonds, citrus, beef and dairy products consume vast amounts of water. But I am in favor of promoting the export of dates and movies made in Hollywood:)
2
Mr. Glover,
Please excuse me if you are an hon. member of Congress. BUT if you are not , I don't think you read the bill. If so you must have a heck of a security clearance.
"If you’re a member (of Congress) who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.And you can't discuss what you've read."
That's what makes it so evil.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/secrecy-eroding-support-for-trade-...
Please excuse me if you are an hon. member of Congress. BUT if you are not , I don't think you read the bill. If so you must have a heck of a security clearance.
"If you’re a member (of Congress) who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.And you can't discuss what you've read."
That's what makes it so evil.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/secrecy-eroding-support-for-trade-...
1
How does Ryan Glover know what he likes or doesn't like in the secret draft treaty that even congresspeople and senators are proscribed from taking notes on? What we do know is that the proposed deal is devastating to Americans working in manufacturing industries and wonderful for the owners of exploitable intellectual property and manufacturing industries who wish to reduce costs of manufacture and thus generate greater margins to line their already stuffed pockets. Obama sees China as a potential foe rather than a potential partner, and he has decided to sell American workers down the river to try to outflank the Chinese. Let's hope the Democrats who are bold enough to stand up to the plutocrats hang in there.
2
"---congressional Republicans and business groups argue that it will unlock foreign markets to Americans goods..." This statement says it all: Republicans and business group are eagerly backing a Democratic president, whom they have given the back of their hands, and the president still is going all out to have this agreement passed. How pathetic, how absurd Obama appears. I have my representatives in the Congress on notice that they must reject this ignominious agreement no matter how many times is brought to them.
9
It is impossible for Obama to have a legacy of strong climate action as well as have a legacy of the TPP. The TPP will increase international carbon emissions at a time when we need to reduce emissions sharply. It won't make any difference if US trucks and planes spew fewer emissions if Asian trucks, factories, ships and planes are sending gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2
If this is such a great trade deal for Americans, then why are its provisions a secret? And why is there no mention of this basic fact in this article? This is propaganda for the administration, not reporting, and definitely not "news analysis."
11
Again, how can any responsible congressman support a trade bill that has to have a accompanying bill to support those laid off as a result of the trade bill. Didn't see this getting any notice in the "analysis" above. Maybe it's just those "on the left" who worry about these things.
9
I want to support President Obama in this, as I have in most things.
But the secrets that have come out thus far, if true, stir my deepest fears.
Is it accurate that Big Pharma has influenced the pact to the degree that the rest of the world would wind up paying the criminally exorbitant drug prices that the US population pays? If so, Big Pharma will not only be ripping other countries off financially, but they will also have motive to push their drugs abroad even harder than now.
Prescription drugs are the #3 cause of death in the US. We already export and unscrupulously market tobacco abroad. Are we now going to push our second epidemic even more strongly to the rest of the world?
I've also heard that the multibillion dollar flame retardant/cancer industry is deeply in this agreement as well. How to find out?
How to support this pact in good conscience?
But the secrets that have come out thus far, if true, stir my deepest fears.
Is it accurate that Big Pharma has influenced the pact to the degree that the rest of the world would wind up paying the criminally exorbitant drug prices that the US population pays? If so, Big Pharma will not only be ripping other countries off financially, but they will also have motive to push their drugs abroad even harder than now.
Prescription drugs are the #3 cause of death in the US. We already export and unscrupulously market tobacco abroad. Are we now going to push our second epidemic even more strongly to the rest of the world?
I've also heard that the multibillion dollar flame retardant/cancer industry is deeply in this agreement as well. How to find out?
How to support this pact in good conscience?
4
Supporting the TPP in good conscience is an oxymoron.
1
This started with the trickle down economics of Reagan. Then NAFTA and if TPP goes through we really are in trouble.
Instead of getting trickle down economics, we got trickle up poverty. Take a drive through Detroit if you wanna see how that's working. What happens when a few at the top are fabulously wealthy and can buy politicians, you have a third world country. China is building bullet trains and we're building bombs.
Instead of getting trickle down economics, we got trickle up poverty. Take a drive through Detroit if you wanna see how that's working. What happens when a few at the top are fabulously wealthy and can buy politicians, you have a third world country. China is building bullet trains and we're building bombs.
8
The TPP will happen. The question is who will lead it? If the USA doesn't lead it we will regret it forever and lose any chance of further influence in that area. We cannot afford to be an island. We need to keep extending AND controlling our global commerce. The TPP is a road to future riches just like NAFTA is.
2
To Curtis Dickinson from Worcester:
Riches to you, right?
Riches to you, right?
1
Good riddance. These agreements benefit large business interests; they are loaded with hidden clauses that do a number on American workers and consumers. Incidentally those clauses can overridel domestic laws to the contrary. That's the reason why these proposed agreements are kept secret.
8
The only Presidential legacy from recent trade deals is the negative one from NAFTA that stains Bill Clinton's remarkable record of economic success. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, if you look at the graphic on total trade in previous Times' articles, is largely a new NAFTA since 75 percent of the trade involves Canada and Mexico. And, half of the remaining 25 percent is with Japan. If President Obama is looking outside the country for a true legacy, he'll find it in reaching a nuclear deal with Iran, developing a viable political, rather than military-only, strategy in the Middle East, and recognizing a State of Palestine. Along with his major domestic achievement with the Affordable Care Act, a solid peace is much more of a positive, durable legacy than another dubious trade deal.
3
If anyone could show us, in a well-written, non-political review, how the previous free trade agreements have helped, or at least not harmed, the American working class, there may be more support for the president's TPP proposal.
As it is, all the previous free-trade agreements are associated, in the public mind, with a massive out-sourcing of American jobs, verifying Ross Perot's prophecy of the "giant sucking sound" of American jobs leaving the country.
As it is, all the previous free-trade agreements are associated, in the public mind, with a massive out-sourcing of American jobs, verifying Ross Perot's prophecy of the "giant sucking sound" of American jobs leaving the country.
10
This article completely misses the point. Many people are opposed to the TPP because of the secrecy that has surrounded it, not because they are against trade agreements in general. Voting against Obama's fast-track authority to force the TPP through before anybody even knows what it is, is not the same thing as voting against the TPP itself. I'm not a protectionist, I'm a libertarian in favor of free trade – but I'm opposed to making huge, sweeping deals like this in secret. If it's a good bill, let us see it and talk about it. The lack of transparency only makes me suspect that the devil is in the details, and that by "free trade" they really mean lots of pork and kickbacks and under-the-table subsidies for favored corporations. We don't need more of that, thanks.
12
First the treaty is negotiated -and all senators can have a look at it right now.Then congress puts it to a yes no vote. That is the time to start pressuring your representatives on their votes. You cannot negotiate anything with a big huge group of people especially this congress you can't agree that the sun rises in the east. Trade treaties have always been done this way. I think it must be a pretty good deal for the average worker or the president wouldn't be for it.i think we have learned from the mistakes in previous trade deals.
The US has been a trendsetter in regional economic integration since NAFTA. The TPP's fast track authority defeat in Congress is a major game changer.
It has two important consequences domestically and internationally.
First, the organized American labor movement will get central stage in future trade negotiations. Second, dead on water multilateral trade negotiations at the WTO can regain momentum.
It has two important consequences domestically and internationally.
First, the organized American labor movement will get central stage in future trade negotiations. Second, dead on water multilateral trade negotiations at the WTO can regain momentum.
1
Why the word legacy with respect to TPP again? Who cares if the president has a legacy? Is his job to serve the public or have a personal legacy?
If Obama wants a legacy like Roosevelt or Lincoln, do something for the average person. A stellar legacy among the .01% is not going to get you in the history books except with the title "worst president". Single payer healthcare - that would be a positive legacy that would cement his position in US history.
If Obama wants a legacy like Roosevelt or Lincoln, do something for the average person. A stellar legacy among the .01% is not going to get you in the history books except with the title "worst president". Single payer healthcare - that would be a positive legacy that would cement his position in US history.
30
If Mr. Obama worries about legacy, he should worry about say, shoring up Obamacare, or firming up many of his many promises, so far neglected, that won him re-election: closing Guantanamo and leaving Iraq for good, making college education affordable to all, alternative energy, or climate change, or the minimum wage, or helping the long-term unemployed --all topics that were showered by great speeches from the President and no meaningful action on his part.
But a trade deal? Negotiated in secret, in spite of the President's speeches about transparency? And a trade deal that gives up US independence on parts of its court system and intellectual property laws, reduces the availability of generic drugs, and gives second thrift to the environment while expanding visa categories for foreign workers employed by business as drafts published by Wikileaks show? And a trade deal that places a fig leaf with training for displaced workers, but pays it with cuts to Medicare?
That this could create a legacy is not just absurd, it is plain insulting.
But a trade deal? Negotiated in secret, in spite of the President's speeches about transparency? And a trade deal that gives up US independence on parts of its court system and intellectual property laws, reduces the availability of generic drugs, and gives second thrift to the environment while expanding visa categories for foreign workers employed by business as drafts published by Wikileaks show? And a trade deal that places a fig leaf with training for displaced workers, but pays it with cuts to Medicare?
That this could create a legacy is not just absurd, it is plain insulting.
42
"The trade agreement, about a decade in the making, would stitch together the United States with 11 other nations along the Pacific Rim, including Canada, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia, creating a free-trade zone for about 40 percent of the world’s economy. It would lower tariffs, while setting rules for resolving trade disputes, setting patents and protecting intellectual property. China is not part of the group."
Without China, what's the point?
TPP, like NAFTA, is about, for and by multinational corporations.
Without China, what's the point?
TPP, like NAFTA, is about, for and by multinational corporations.
30
The "Asian pivot" makes sense to me. The TPP doesn't. If it had been presented to the American people side-by-side with a massive infrastructure and new energy package sure to generate thousands and thousands of jobs throughout the country, or if it had been presented to the American people at all instead of shrouded in secrecy (except for the 600 corporations we've been promised to as serfs), then I think most of us could see a bigger, brighter picture. As it is, the TPP just seems to herald our soon-to-be-realized fully dystopian future.
It isn't that I don't see the wisdom of good relations around the Pacific. But if President Obama wants middle-income households to get with the plan, save us from the corporate feudalists who are carving up the world as their fiefdoms. Make sure we have access to health care (actual care, not useless insurance), good public schools and public universities, and a reasonably dignified old age. You can't take our livelihoods and give us nothing in return.
It isn't that I don't see the wisdom of good relations around the Pacific. But if President Obama wants middle-income households to get with the plan, save us from the corporate feudalists who are carving up the world as their fiefdoms. Make sure we have access to health care (actual care, not useless insurance), good public schools and public universities, and a reasonably dignified old age. You can't take our livelihoods and give us nothing in return.
12
This article is like something out of the mouth of Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary.
..."josh" or "earnest"...which is it? A name for a spokesperson that sounds like it’s out of “Catch 22”, and yet, in reality, a name for a press secretary that is stranger than fiction.
Does the NYT earnestly believe we should go along with something held in secret from us, that we should trust legislation from a lame-duck president, which is not supported by his own political party but IS supported by that of his more pro-business opposition party? Does the Times suggest that we should unquestioningly trust a political system that gave us the Doublespeak of the Patriot Act in response to the “weapons of mass destruction” of Iraq?
Surely, the New York Times is joshing us.
..."josh" or "earnest"...which is it? A name for a spokesperson that sounds like it’s out of “Catch 22”, and yet, in reality, a name for a press secretary that is stranger than fiction.
Does the NYT earnestly believe we should go along with something held in secret from us, that we should trust legislation from a lame-duck president, which is not supported by his own political party but IS supported by that of his more pro-business opposition party? Does the Times suggest that we should unquestioningly trust a political system that gave us the Doublespeak of the Patriot Act in response to the “weapons of mass destruction” of Iraq?
Surely, the New York Times is joshing us.
33
Can the media please explain why this thing is "classified" and why Wikileaks is offering $100,000 to whoever will give it for publication?
I am so grateful to our state's elected representatives and senators for standing against this heavy-handed push and also to Elizabeth Warren and others who are asking for a better deal.
If H. Clinton would back a constitutional amendment to wipe out Citizens United why do we wait? Let's do it now.
Big Pharma with excessive profits and prices has a great deal to gain from this trade agreement. And it has to be the sickest dependency we have, running to meds instead of living healthy, loving healthy, and dying naturally.
I am so grateful to our state's elected representatives and senators for standing against this heavy-handed push and also to Elizabeth Warren and others who are asking for a better deal.
If H. Clinton would back a constitutional amendment to wipe out Citizens United why do we wait? Let's do it now.
Big Pharma with excessive profits and prices has a great deal to gain from this trade agreement. And it has to be the sickest dependency we have, running to meds instead of living healthy, loving healthy, and dying naturally.
14
I did not vote for President Obama, but he is the president of all Americans and represents our country. I support the treaty because it will help this country more than it hurts. It will create more jobs than it eliminates and the created jobs will be higher paying jobs. Anyone that is hurt can be helped or compensated. America can't become an isolationist nation. The US benefits from trade and this treaty will bind many countries to us in these perilous times. The lower price of imported goods will help the American consumer. Labor leaders know they can't stop time or reverse it but they feel like they are losing their power. What better way of showing your power than defeating their president. I hope that every person that lives in the districts of the congress people who takes their marching orders from unions gets on the phone to express your thoughts to your congress person.
3
I don't regard him as my president for he does not in any manner represent my values. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do.
2
You see, it's blithe assertions of this kind, without reference to any specifics whatsoever, that turned me against this thing. How do you know this treaty will help more than it hurts? You don't. Moreover, you can't, because the terms are still all top secret. So no, I'm delighted the whole thing has gone down in flames.
2
I don't understand his message. Is he for or against unions? I tell you straight that I am for unions, although I never was a member. I did, however, sit through days-long, maybe months-long negotiations. My pencil flashed through pages of verbatim notes that later had to be typed. My reason for unions? It's because what a union gains for its members, floats all boats. For every benefit given the union, management grants a better benefit for salaried employees.
Now, sink the union, sink the nonunion employees. In actuality, what we unknowingly or perhaps knowingly, are doing is sinking corporations, which if of sufficient means rush to another country of far less remuneration for employees, then return to the U.S. with a few more pennies for their employees here.
Seems we are shedding all morality, ethics, maintenance of highways and byways for the sake of more pennies for the few. With media in tow, we continue downward for the sake of those few and never know it.
How about an article or maybe several, of how far down the ladder the U.S. has fallen?
Now, sink the union, sink the nonunion employees. In actuality, what we unknowingly or perhaps knowingly, are doing is sinking corporations, which if of sufficient means rush to another country of far less remuneration for employees, then return to the U.S. with a few more pennies for their employees here.
Seems we are shedding all morality, ethics, maintenance of highways and byways for the sake of more pennies for the few. With media in tow, we continue downward for the sake of those few and never know it.
How about an article or maybe several, of how far down the ladder the U.S. has fallen?
2
Good for the DEMS. Don't cave in! From the little we have seen (its classified) The TPP is a disaster for workers, consumers and humans generally but the corporation who negotiated it love it.
19
Eliminate the corporations. Then there will be no use for workers and nothing to consume. And humans will revert to the caveman lifestyle. Democrats love to bite the hand that feeds them.
To Curtis Dickinson:
There is not such corporate hand that feeds anyone. The corporate hand barely pays wages under obligation by the Laws of the Country which are weakened every day by the corporations lobbies.
People work for their sustainment, and they get paid less that is fair, while CEO take obscene amounts of treasure from everyone.
Corporations and banks may be necessary, but that does not mean they can do whatever they want with the workers.
Again, no "job creator" has the right to abuse/exploit any persons.
There is not such corporate hand that feeds anyone. The corporate hand barely pays wages under obligation by the Laws of the Country which are weakened every day by the corporations lobbies.
People work for their sustainment, and they get paid less that is fair, while CEO take obscene amounts of treasure from everyone.
Corporations and banks may be necessary, but that does not mean they can do whatever they want with the workers.
Again, no "job creator" has the right to abuse/exploit any persons.
1
What is this "legacy" business the media has been harping on all year? The president's job is to lead the country, and to be not only responsive to, but fighting for the people who brought him to the party.
Somehow there was a collective delusion about Obama. I smelled a rotten fish when the media appointed him their darling, the next president, after he gave a 5 minute speech at Kerry's convention. And as the NY Times once reported, he had his speech writer pattern his words and cadences on Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Which is to say, for a while, he gave some good speeches, and a lot of college students bought it. Maybe it's time to raise the voting age rather than lower it!!!! Identity politics was the other half of the equation that brought us this stealth corporate weakling.
People were telling me even before he was elected that he was the Manchurian candidate. I scoffed even though I saw him for what he was (actually not so, he is way way worse than I ever imagined.) It turns out they were right.
Somehow there was a collective delusion about Obama. I smelled a rotten fish when the media appointed him their darling, the next president, after he gave a 5 minute speech at Kerry's convention. And as the NY Times once reported, he had his speech writer pattern his words and cadences on Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Which is to say, for a while, he gave some good speeches, and a lot of college students bought it. Maybe it's time to raise the voting age rather than lower it!!!! Identity politics was the other half of the equation that brought us this stealth corporate weakling.
People were telling me even before he was elected that he was the Manchurian candidate. I scoffed even though I saw him for what he was (actually not so, he is way way worse than I ever imagined.) It turns out they were right.
15
Though, I voted for Obama twice, none of that transformed him into a man who works closely with policy-implementers to ensure that all the pieces fit together and work, so as to benefit the US while also benefitting other signers?
I am confident TPP would do great for other signers. In retrospect, the US should never have voted China's admission to the WTO. Rather than become a mature member among modern nations, China has only got more hostile and expansive.
Why do more for China?
What would TPP do for US jobs and how? Assurances that TPP helps the US are mere assertions.
I am confident TPP would do great for other signers. In retrospect, the US should never have voted China's admission to the WTO. Rather than become a mature member among modern nations, China has only got more hostile and expansive.
Why do more for China?
What would TPP do for US jobs and how? Assurances that TPP helps the US are mere assertions.
13
You forget Obama's first term when Republicans met the night of the first inaugural so as to thwart whatever the president suggested. Still they continue their obstruction, twisting it 180 degrees so as to make it seem all is laid at the president's feet. What man of decency can deny or rebut such? Would all you naysayers not be exhausted and finally decide to do it your way?
Mark my words: Barack Obama will go down in history and have a seat near Abraham Lincoln, who suffered mightily to save the union. Does no one know this?
Mark my words: Barack Obama will go down in history and have a seat near Abraham Lincoln, who suffered mightily to save the union. Does no one know this?
If odious parts of the deal like if foreign corporations or states feel that some municipality or State has passed legislation that is in the best interest of their citizens but "harms" their interests then that foreign entity can sue for damages. The lack of real guarantees that American workers and smaller companies won't be left behind. If issues like these wee properly addressed then their would probably be Democrat acceptance of the deal.
8
Obama knows the upside and downside of his trans-pacific trade partnership efforts better than the opponents to this initiative who are myopic. He is not a job killer, intentional or unintentional. But he does recognize where the 21st century jobs are emerging from as well as the leaderhsip role the U.S. must play in the evolving global economy.
4
Obama knows more than his opponents not because we are myopic but by keeping us in the dark, beyond what has been released through WikiLeaks.
Fortunately, what HAS been leaked confirms every doubt we have about this classified gift to corporations.
As to the emerging jobs of the 21st century, they are all going to be in places like China where people are paid pennies in conditions that kill them.
Making that happen is the US's "leadership" role.
Fortunately, what HAS been leaked confirms every doubt we have about this classified gift to corporations.
As to the emerging jobs of the 21st century, they are all going to be in places like China where people are paid pennies in conditions that kill them.
Making that happen is the US's "leadership" role.
1
If Paul Ryan is working to help the POTUS on the TPP, you know that it is not going to benefit American workers.
24
That's for certain sure.
1
I think the president's desire to lift Asian economies was noble, but trying to destroy the American economy in the process was unwise in retrospect.
10
When Congress is discussing how much money to put into the TAA, training and assistance to "displaced workers" who would lose their jobs from this trade bill, you know it is a Shafta bill for American workers. They know we'll lose jobs.
Another thing, I think Obama is naive if he thinks the Japanese will open their markets to our products. We would need a reincarnation of Adm. Perry and his gunboats in Tokyo Bay to accomplish this.
Another thing, I think Obama is naive if he thinks the Japanese will open their markets to our products. We would need a reincarnation of Adm. Perry and his gunboats in Tokyo Bay to accomplish this.
13
I wish the NYTimes would present a comprehensive and objective pro and con list of the likely affects from passage of TPP on all Americans, not just organized labor. Including: increase of health care costs (especially pharma), cost of technology, media, wireless, devices, etc. The media story is all about unions and that is probably the least honest portrayal of why TPP is a bad deal, except for the 1%.
19
It's a secret. Only a few bits of text have leaked. How can the Times do an analysis?
This is not about organized labor. It IS about all workers, and it will be--as NAFTA was before it--VERY bad for ALL WORKERS.
The worst problem, some of which has been mentioned in passing, is the ability of corporations to sue governments (at all levels from nation to municipality) in front of panels primarily of corporate lawyers for alleged loss of so-called future profits (Google Philip Morris vs Uruguay and Australia).
The damage will be not just to workers, but to the environment, consumers AND national sovereignty.
The worst problem, some of which has been mentioned in passing, is the ability of corporations to sue governments (at all levels from nation to municipality) in front of panels primarily of corporate lawyers for alleged loss of so-called future profits (Google Philip Morris vs Uruguay and Australia).
The damage will be not just to workers, but to the environment, consumers AND national sovereignty.
The trade legacy Obama should be pursuing is enforcement of current agreements. That would be the first step to earning the public trust for future presidents to pursue new trade agreements.
Obama inherited a trade environment that could be described as decades of poor, bipartisan Administration and Congressional stewardship of America's interests in trade matters. Multi-national corporations have been the winners and U.S. median household incomes have been the losers. Given that the U.S. economy was in a position of unearned industrial hegemony in the first decades after World War II, there was sure to be relative underperformance vs. the next tier of recovering and developing economies. In the event, tens of millions of U.S. families have experienced material declines in current income and the income prospects of both the current and next generations.
What's known about the proposed TPP, in the works for more than a decade? Among others:
1. Allows corporations to pursue overrides through private tribunals of sovereign laws.
2. Per Oregon Representative DeFazio, TPP does not contain environmental and labor standards enforcement mechanisms, contrary to claims of the White House.
The President should salvage his dignity and self-respect by ceasing and desisting pursuit of TPP. He has not earned, indeed he's forfeited, the public's trust to pursue new trade agreements.
Obama inherited a trade environment that could be described as decades of poor, bipartisan Administration and Congressional stewardship of America's interests in trade matters. Multi-national corporations have been the winners and U.S. median household incomes have been the losers. Given that the U.S. economy was in a position of unearned industrial hegemony in the first decades after World War II, there was sure to be relative underperformance vs. the next tier of recovering and developing economies. In the event, tens of millions of U.S. families have experienced material declines in current income and the income prospects of both the current and next generations.
What's known about the proposed TPP, in the works for more than a decade? Among others:
1. Allows corporations to pursue overrides through private tribunals of sovereign laws.
2. Per Oregon Representative DeFazio, TPP does not contain environmental and labor standards enforcement mechanisms, contrary to claims of the White House.
The President should salvage his dignity and self-respect by ceasing and desisting pursuit of TPP. He has not earned, indeed he's forfeited, the public's trust to pursue new trade agreements.
15
When I look at previous agreements such as NAFTA and others, where the American worker gets sold down the river, I think that for once, the American worker might get a well-deserved place at the negotiating table.
At least this time, when Lucy picks up the football, Charlie Brown (a.k.a., the American worker) will not be the loser.
At least this time, when Lucy picks up the football, Charlie Brown (a.k.a., the American worker) will not be the loser.
10
Traitorous Trade Plutocracy.
16
Wrong acronym. It's TPP, not TTP.
As noted, below, Ukraine and the coup there
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukra...
largely engendered and supproted by the US State Department and associated NGOs comports with "The Grand Chessboard" strategy of ld men still fighting the cold war, but was also about expanding the ECB's ability to find new sources of debt and collateral. Ditto the IMF which will rob and pillage Ukraine to keep the money system going a bit longer.
But apart from the frightening attacks on free speech and other American civil liberties baked into this horrendous deal, you have the concomitant need, for Anglo-Zionist hegemony to crush rather than negotiate with the ethnic Russian separatists. Indeed, our Nobel winning president hasn't said a word about negotiations - he just wants to arm Kiev more and more, more $ from American taxpayers, to allow the puppet regime in Kiev to "kill its own people" - only bad, I guess, when Assad does it.
Hence, villifying Russia, paying trolls to accuse dissidents of being trolls, and of course, putting more and more heavy weapons all around Russia's borders such that
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-15/russia-condemns-aggressive-us-w...
They are forced to respond, and the media can speak of "Russian aggression" in responding in kind.
None of this is necessary.
But Obama doesn't have a "Cross of Iron" speech in him.
Indeed, he is a puppet of the MIC.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukra...
largely engendered and supproted by the US State Department and associated NGOs comports with "The Grand Chessboard" strategy of ld men still fighting the cold war, but was also about expanding the ECB's ability to find new sources of debt and collateral. Ditto the IMF which will rob and pillage Ukraine to keep the money system going a bit longer.
But apart from the frightening attacks on free speech and other American civil liberties baked into this horrendous deal, you have the concomitant need, for Anglo-Zionist hegemony to crush rather than negotiate with the ethnic Russian separatists. Indeed, our Nobel winning president hasn't said a word about negotiations - he just wants to arm Kiev more and more, more $ from American taxpayers, to allow the puppet regime in Kiev to "kill its own people" - only bad, I guess, when Assad does it.
Hence, villifying Russia, paying trolls to accuse dissidents of being trolls, and of course, putting more and more heavy weapons all around Russia's borders such that
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-15/russia-condemns-aggressive-us-w...
They are forced to respond, and the media can speak of "Russian aggression" in responding in kind.
None of this is necessary.
But Obama doesn't have a "Cross of Iron" speech in him.
Indeed, he is a puppet of the MIC.
7
your terrible reportorial shorthand--"some on the left"--is extremely misleading and harmful. i and most of my friends are not "on the left". most of us even have republican antecedents. we are independents; realists; those who disavow ideology.
yet we clearly oppose this trade legislation, as well as the secretive process, because it would further undermine our democracy and harm the middle class; it would escalate wage and wealth differences; it would harm our foreign trade imbalance.
pres. obama seems to be seeking this, with his republican colleagues, to enhance his "legacy". in fact, this pursuit of a legacy will in fact destroy his reputation and probably make it far easier for the republicans to re-claim the white house in 2016.
so, please report accurately. don't, again, "usher us into an invasion or iraq".
yet we clearly oppose this trade legislation, as well as the secretive process, because it would further undermine our democracy and harm the middle class; it would escalate wage and wealth differences; it would harm our foreign trade imbalance.
pres. obama seems to be seeking this, with his republican colleagues, to enhance his "legacy". in fact, this pursuit of a legacy will in fact destroy his reputation and probably make it far easier for the republicans to re-claim the white house in 2016.
so, please report accurately. don't, again, "usher us into an invasion or iraq".
34
I agree with Jon Huntsman Jr. “In Asia, it’s seen as directly tied to our leadership and commitment to the region. A failed T.P.P. would create an influence vacuum that others, primarily China, would fill.”
Jon was the governor of Utah 2005-2009 when Obama asked him to be the ambassador to China. Jon served as the US ambassador to Singapore from 1992 to 1993 and chosen by Barack Obama to be the ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011. (Which the Republican base seized on as THE reason that Huntsman would never be a Republican candidate).
Jon served his Mormon Mission in China and is not only fluent in the language but as a graduate of Penn and the Wharton School of Business he was very aware and involved with China’s growing economy.
This isn’t NAFTA on steroids. T.P.P. is absolutely necessary for the USA to stay in the loop of the future of Pacific Rim economics. Nancy Pelosi listened to HER base. A base that does NOT understand the global economy...only isolationism and what’s good for me RIGHT NOW. We just can’t think that way!
Jon was the governor of Utah 2005-2009 when Obama asked him to be the ambassador to China. Jon served as the US ambassador to Singapore from 1992 to 1993 and chosen by Barack Obama to be the ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011. (Which the Republican base seized on as THE reason that Huntsman would never be a Republican candidate).
Jon served his Mormon Mission in China and is not only fluent in the language but as a graduate of Penn and the Wharton School of Business he was very aware and involved with China’s growing economy.
This isn’t NAFTA on steroids. T.P.P. is absolutely necessary for the USA to stay in the loop of the future of Pacific Rim economics. Nancy Pelosi listened to HER base. A base that does NOT understand the global economy...only isolationism and what’s good for me RIGHT NOW. We just can’t think that way!
2
This is idiotic. The US is "in the loop" of the economy of the Pacific Rim simply in virtue of the size of its own economy. It doesn't have to screw its own working class to have a seat at the table.
People before corporations.
16
The president will soon belong to the past, our focus should now be on the future. These questions about "free trade" and its impact on Americans should now be directed at our presidential candidates and our own representatives. If only some of the NY Times commenters could be seated at a presidential debate table.. or is our only hope at getting the details of our own future through a Wikileaks bribe?
9
What she said ! ! ! I cannot figure out what happened to our candidate Obama, transparency HA! and downsizing the military stranglehold on the oval office. Double HA!
6
I don't get it. The NYT seems very big on the TPP as Obama's "legacy". It seems the US has to pass the pact so the old guy can go off into the sunset happy. Surely that's a lousy reason?
16
Obama needs to take a trip around the manufacturing cities that have boarded up and see what these free trade agreements do to the American workers. He campaigned on jobs this bill is a job killer.
17
The United States has ratified over a dozen free trade agreements in the last 20 years, a timeframe during which the American middle class has unfortunately not prospered.
No one can say with a straight face anymore that "what's good for General Motors is good for the country." Good corporate citizens? Without even blinking, U.S. corporations move jobs and procurement and profits overseas.
Now that 99% of all new income goes to the top 1%, we can say that the prevailing corporate ethos has become so rapacious that there is no reason to "trust" that the secret TPP will generate new or better jobs in the United States.
In 1952, the top marginal tax rate on individuals' income was 92%, and U.S. corporations provided the U.S. federal government with 33% of its revenue. Today, the top marginal tax rate on the highest earners is under 40%, and U.S. corporations (despite record profits) provide the government with only 9% of its revenue. One result is that the top 1% now gets 20% of the nation's income, as opposed to 10% in 1952.
USTR did a very poor job with the TPP, and Obama's last-minute rush to twist arms on Capitol Hill showed him once again to be in the thrall of bureaucratic and corporate interests. Before taking on the ill-conceived TPP, Obama should have done more to address income inequality.
As the middle class shrinks, income inequality breeds social resentment and political polarization that will make it more difficult for American democracy to prosper.
No one can say with a straight face anymore that "what's good for General Motors is good for the country." Good corporate citizens? Without even blinking, U.S. corporations move jobs and procurement and profits overseas.
Now that 99% of all new income goes to the top 1%, we can say that the prevailing corporate ethos has become so rapacious that there is no reason to "trust" that the secret TPP will generate new or better jobs in the United States.
In 1952, the top marginal tax rate on individuals' income was 92%, and U.S. corporations provided the U.S. federal government with 33% of its revenue. Today, the top marginal tax rate on the highest earners is under 40%, and U.S. corporations (despite record profits) provide the government with only 9% of its revenue. One result is that the top 1% now gets 20% of the nation's income, as opposed to 10% in 1952.
USTR did a very poor job with the TPP, and Obama's last-minute rush to twist arms on Capitol Hill showed him once again to be in the thrall of bureaucratic and corporate interests. Before taking on the ill-conceived TPP, Obama should have done more to address income inequality.
As the middle class shrinks, income inequality breeds social resentment and political polarization that will make it more difficult for American democracy to prosper.
68
So, what is the impact to the middle class of not passing TPP?
This deal proves democracy is dead.
I agree with everything you've said except that the USTR did a poor job. It did exactly what Obama wanted it to do: provide more power to multinational corporations.
Whatever the merits of the TPP itself, it seems that, like other (quite different) trade agreements in the past -- one thinks of NAFTA -- the reaction against it includes disturbing overtones of xenophobia and isolationism.
Lowering tariffs is not the holy grail. Countries like the US where a living wage is $15 do not have to compete in labor with a country like Vietnam where it's 15 cents. It's only companies who demand more profit who insist that we do.
President Obama has played a pretty strong hand given the terrible cards he was dealt, and but economics is his weak suit. To be an excellent President, instead of just very good, he should have spurned men like Robert Rubin, and instead hired skeptics like Robert Reich. Skeptics understand that every business acting in its own short-term financial self-interest is not necessarily in the best interest of all. Same with removing "trade barriers" such as laws against pollution, or price-gouging medicine, to protect the health and welfare of people. President Obama has been unable to explain why TPP is a good thing because modern "free trade" theory doesn't make sense when applied to countries where the cost of living and other standards vary so widely.
People say we have to compete with countries like China. But no, in fact, we don't. It's only companies like Walmart and Apple who insist that we do. If we are really worried about China, we could stop it, but US corporations now won't let us.
By the way, if Republicans had passed even one law on behalf of American workers, like raised the minimum wage, the TPP would have passed. Maybe top execs would have had to take a pay cut, but the law would have passed without a whimper of protest.
President Obama has played a pretty strong hand given the terrible cards he was dealt, and but economics is his weak suit. To be an excellent President, instead of just very good, he should have spurned men like Robert Rubin, and instead hired skeptics like Robert Reich. Skeptics understand that every business acting in its own short-term financial self-interest is not necessarily in the best interest of all. Same with removing "trade barriers" such as laws against pollution, or price-gouging medicine, to protect the health and welfare of people. President Obama has been unable to explain why TPP is a good thing because modern "free trade" theory doesn't make sense when applied to countries where the cost of living and other standards vary so widely.
People say we have to compete with countries like China. But no, in fact, we don't. It's only companies like Walmart and Apple who insist that we do. If we are really worried about China, we could stop it, but US corporations now won't let us.
By the way, if Republicans had passed even one law on behalf of American workers, like raised the minimum wage, the TPP would have passed. Maybe top execs would have had to take a pay cut, but the law would have passed without a whimper of protest.
8
I'm really sick of reading the phrase, "Obama's legacy." Doesn't anything matter in itself? Is the trade agreement only significant because it might or might not contribute to Obama's historical weight? I am also perplexed that reporters find it noteworthy that Democrats supported organized labor over multilateral trade agreements. What was actually noteworthy was that Republicans in the House were willing to stiff the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Republican leadership in the Senate by voting against the fast track authority. They did this because they hate Obama more than they like their corporate sponsors.
3
The biggest sell-outs are here in "progressive" Oregon, where Obama twisted the arms of Portland metro Congress(wo)men to support both fast track and the Senate amendment with the hook of a Nike swoosh. (Thankfully Congressman DeFazio has Oregonians' interests at heart.)
Then there's Senator-no-NSA-secret-surveillance-Wyden. How could Senator Wyden have supported these secret trade agreements?
Oh yeah. I forgot... He's running for re-election. Big business has his back.
With passage of fast track, Portlandia will remain the City 'Where Young People Go To Retire'.
Then there's Senator-no-NSA-secret-surveillance-Wyden. How could Senator Wyden have supported these secret trade agreements?
Oh yeah. I forgot... He's running for re-election. Big business has his back.
With passage of fast track, Portlandia will remain the City 'Where Young People Go To Retire'.
5
How sad that you're more concerned with Obama's legacy than you are about what's in the deal that the American people aren't allowed to know the details of.
10
This failure says a lot about the Obama presidency. He never could make the deals that presidents of both parties did. He never risked political clout to work with the other party in the past, and now can not persuade his own party to back him. He needs to focus less on his presidential library and govern if he is to be a successful president.
4
The Chinese might benefit from the dumping of this disastrous deal, but the American worker would fare even worse if it went ahead. Remember that other great benefit: NAFTA. What did that provide for the non-1 percent? Nothing.
8
In my opinion President Obama's long-term legacy is secure. If the TPP goes forward (which I oppose) we should make sure China is a participant before ratification. Isolating this country is a political move, not an economic one.
2
One thing under-reported in the press, although its gotten coverage on huffpo and slate, salon and some other new media, is the meddling of AIPAc and the Israel Lobby in what is supposed to be a trade deal having nothing to do with Israel.
Sit with that a moment.
Though AIPAC was, rare for them, "defeated"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/news-for-peace-advocates-aip...
One can be sure that they will be back with the same demands on behalf of Likud. Can someone please tell me why AIPAC does not register as the agent of a foreign power?
This brings up a related concern - how the TPP may be used to impact free speech, or free expression, such as your right to boycott Israel, or China, or Canada, if you like, without punitive government measures acting on behalf of the lobby for a foreign state.
AIPAC's meddling was as offensive as it was predictable, but by no means are they the only special interest group [just the best funded and feared] meddling with this deal.
http://www.ibtimes.com/tpp-trade-deal-would-curb-freedom-speech-online-i...
You may be pro-Israel, you may be anti-Canada... but you should not be, in any case, for agreements which try to make an end run around the Bill of Rights.
The answer to speech you don't like is more speech.
Sit with that a moment.
Though AIPAC was, rare for them, "defeated"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/news-for-peace-advocates-aip...
One can be sure that they will be back with the same demands on behalf of Likud. Can someone please tell me why AIPAC does not register as the agent of a foreign power?
This brings up a related concern - how the TPP may be used to impact free speech, or free expression, such as your right to boycott Israel, or China, or Canada, if you like, without punitive government measures acting on behalf of the lobby for a foreign state.
AIPAC's meddling was as offensive as it was predictable, but by no means are they the only special interest group [just the best funded and feared] meddling with this deal.
http://www.ibtimes.com/tpp-trade-deal-would-curb-freedom-speech-online-i...
You may be pro-Israel, you may be anti-Canada... but you should not be, in any case, for agreements which try to make an end run around the Bill of Rights.
The answer to speech you don't like is more speech.
11
As a retired union member, who saw how his hometown, and how another nearby town, both mighty manufacturing towns, was obliterated after Bill Clinton and GOP allies put forth NAFTA, just why should I, or any working class person, trust that the corporations in concert with their GOP overseers and Democratic Presidents looking to their legacies, will do what is best for me? Sorry, but capitalism cuts more ways than just in the corporations best interests, and it is my responsibility, any man's responsibility, to take care of his family in the best way he knows how. Why should I, or my family, or my co-workers and their families, or our towns become more sacrificial lambs in order to enhance what is already obscene corporate profits by allowing them more leeway in order to offshore more jobs, or if they don't offshore to use these trade deals as a cudgel against wages and benefits?
If you want my support on the TPP, then you get, in specific language, ironclad guarantees about wages and benefits, and insourcing jobs, and limits on outsourcing. You don't leave it to the corporations, as Bubba and the Newt did with NAFTA.
Supporters of the TPP, including Obama, need to realize how disastrous NAFTA was, and the legacy of that is what they are up against. If they want the TPP, they must realize that they are basically going to have to negotiate a global labor contract to get the deal done. The workers are now part and parcel of any trade deal.
If you want my support on the TPP, then you get, in specific language, ironclad guarantees about wages and benefits, and insourcing jobs, and limits on outsourcing. You don't leave it to the corporations, as Bubba and the Newt did with NAFTA.
Supporters of the TPP, including Obama, need to realize how disastrous NAFTA was, and the legacy of that is what they are up against. If they want the TPP, they must realize that they are basically going to have to negotiate a global labor contract to get the deal done. The workers are now part and parcel of any trade deal.
69
I hope you are correct, but it is unlikely labor will ever get anything reasonable out of trade deals, and this one just gives away our sovereignty to the corporate oligarchical masters of deceit and greed.
1
Unfortunately, your pessimism is warranted.
I voted twice for the president. But the White House has turned a blind eye to the devasted industrial towns in the Ohio River Valley which have been decimated by so-called free trade bills in the past.
Steel mills and factories sit rusting despite the billboard promises by oil and gas developers like Range and Chesapeake that fracking in the Marcellus and Utica shales will bring manufacturing back to our region. Why doesn't the White House economic team focus on redeveloping our newly-energy-rich region as its "legacy," instead?
With no jobs for our kids, heroin and meth, the majority of which flows over the border from Mexico, have devastated our Ohio Valley communities-- not exactly the "free trade" we were looking for when NAFTA was shoved down our throats by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and big business lobbyists looking for cheap labor in the hotel and agricultural industries. Indeed, Ross Perot called it right-- there would soon be a giant "sucking sound" of manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S.
Our president needs to spend more time in the small towns and cities in the heartland. Maybe then he will build up enough political capital to pass a trade bill which the rest of us will accept on blind faith. But until then, we've seen the damage so-called free trade can do-- and will put our trust in Richard Trumka and Nancy Pelosi, for now, thank you.
Steel mills and factories sit rusting despite the billboard promises by oil and gas developers like Range and Chesapeake that fracking in the Marcellus and Utica shales will bring manufacturing back to our region. Why doesn't the White House economic team focus on redeveloping our newly-energy-rich region as its "legacy," instead?
With no jobs for our kids, heroin and meth, the majority of which flows over the border from Mexico, have devastated our Ohio Valley communities-- not exactly the "free trade" we were looking for when NAFTA was shoved down our throats by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and big business lobbyists looking for cheap labor in the hotel and agricultural industries. Indeed, Ross Perot called it right-- there would soon be a giant "sucking sound" of manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S.
Our president needs to spend more time in the small towns and cities in the heartland. Maybe then he will build up enough political capital to pass a trade bill which the rest of us will accept on blind faith. But until then, we've seen the damage so-called free trade can do-- and will put our trust in Richard Trumka and Nancy Pelosi, for now, thank you.
66
Your error is that you think he cares. He has the regard of the people who matter to him: elite liberals, social justice activists, and Hollywood. He's all set.
If you truly think Obama can show up at a plant and look at lower middle class families and truly care about them, and to then display the self-abnegation to get deals done, then you simply do not understand the man.
If you truly think Obama can show up at a plant and look at lower middle class families and truly care about them, and to then display the self-abnegation to get deals done, then you simply do not understand the man.
4
The story you tell about what NAFTA did to your community is heart breaking
So, if in the past we have been in a leadership position on trade agreements, why aren't we doing better? Seems those who have not been leading have been more successful then we. What are we worried about "losing?"
No mention of the secrecy around the agreement, or any specifics on how jobs will be created in the US and at what salaries.
Why not?
Why not?
5
I can't understand why Obama insists on selling us out this way.
6
Somehow, this reminds me of an energy deal that was negotiated in secret by Vice-President Dick Cheney with the oil companies early in the W administration. I feel betrayed by our President.
7
Also, the closed door meetings with health care oligarchs in which in secret he promised no pulic nor single payer option. A promise he kept after trolling meducare at 55 when thatntook off despite his best efforts, then killing it because he had promises to keep.
". . . .trying to convince Democrats of the deal’s importance."? No one doubts that the deal is "important". The question is whether its far-reaching effects are for good or for ill, whom will be helped and whom will be hurt. Is it unreasonable for those who have been left out of the picture entirely (labor, environmentalists) to suspect that they will be the losers?
13
Free trade equals slave trade....fair trade equals fair trade...
That is the bottom line..
That is the bottom line..
8
Anytime someone from the Heritage Foundation or who was an advisor to George Bush approves of something, I know that it will be bad for me and for my family.
10
" Distant and Defensive" - that is how the World sees America under Obama ...Which makes his "Deal" with Iran all the more important for his "Legacy" and therefore I fear Obama will " give away the Store" to make it happen to the detriment of the Middle East, the World and the even America...
5
Obama has already given so much to his corproate buddies and now he wants to give them our sovereignty. DEMS must say NO. The GOP Os so corproate centered it just doesn't care.
The TPP isn't about President Obama's legacy, it is about pay back to his huge corporate campaign donors which is why the Republicans and the business groups are so adamant about this passing. Here is a perfect litmus test to know whether this is good for anyone but wealthy corporations: the Republicans in Congress are for it. This is a bad deal for regular humans every where. Call your Congressmen and women and tell them not to vote for it.
13
It's not surprising that those around the President are couching this deal in terms that would make it seem more important to the President, personally, than in the harsh light of what this would do to this country. That the deal was written, in secret, by transnational corporations, who would gain the most, is telling. One part of this agreement establishes a tribunal for settling corporation/member country disputes that is run by corporate lawyers, with no judicial participation by member countries. In essence, this elevates the rights of corporations above that of the sovereignty of member countries. The Founders would never have allowed this to be considered, let alone not even discussed by Congress prior to enactment.
That the President has ignored reasonable requests for openness, debate and due diligence regarding the TPP is absurd. It's unreasonable for any president to hold the citizens' rights and opinions in such low regard. He deserves a resounding rejection of this wrong-headed and dangerously un-American "deal".
That the President has ignored reasonable requests for openness, debate and due diligence regarding the TPP is absurd. It's unreasonable for any president to hold the citizens' rights and opinions in such low regard. He deserves a resounding rejection of this wrong-headed and dangerously un-American "deal".
15
Nothing is more important than getting Hillary into the Oval Office.
Pandering and patronizing the middle class will be the strategy for 2016.
The democrats in Congress are already in lockstep behind their leaders.
Hillary...and Bill.
So, bye-bye President Obama. Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry.
Pandering and patronizing the middle class will be the strategy for 2016.
The democrats in Congress are already in lockstep behind their leaders.
Hillary...and Bill.
So, bye-bye President Obama. Drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry.
2
Sorry, I won't join those who deliberately what is happening in Congress. This is not about rejecting free trade with the other members of the TPP. It is about an Administration that has waited too long to secure this "fast-track" authority. Major agreements like NAFTA started to be negotiated only after "fast-track" was already in place. The architects of the TPP thought they were smarter than everyone, and decided to negotiate without the commitment of the Congress. This mistake goes back to the end of the Bush Administration. And by-the-way, none of our TPP partners have a "fast-track" process....Why should they care if we are on equal footing, in that regard? The truth is, they don't. The problem comes because of unresolved disputes between different U.S. economic sectors (corn growers vs. car manufacturers), each wanting to avoid having to make reciprocal concessions in the Agreement....and Obama not having the political moxie to tell them they all have to ante up!!!!
2
In my opinion, it will not be a successful project. This will be consequences for America. Because Obama is doing what is comfortable for him. I want to note that his reign is coming to the end.
1
People are sick of being presented these Hobson's choices on the most vital issues that concern us, from the bail out in '08, to the ACA, and now to this this. We're warned that DISASTER looms if we don't go along with the program. But if it's all SO vital to our very survival, why are we constantly being prevented from even read the details of the so-called fixes. I was proud of the Democrats for getting it and saying "no" on our behalf. It's about time.
13
If you cannot admit your mistakes (NAFTA) then you are doomed to repeat them.
8
I love our President and would vote for him a third time of I could. But with all due respect, I don't care about his legacy, I care about our country's health. The TPP is wrong for America.
53
Reading such nonsense from our supposedly "educated" citizenry shows how shortsighted the American public really is.
The one issue all economists agree on is that trade is a good thing.
Why we wouldn't agree to a trade deal that allows the US to write the rules is unfathomable.
By turning down the TPP, you will leave your children and grandchildren in a worse state.
So actually, the TPP is exactly right for America.
The one issue all economists agree on is that trade is a good thing.
Why we wouldn't agree to a trade deal that allows the US to write the rules is unfathomable.
By turning down the TPP, you will leave your children and grandchildren in a worse state.
So actually, the TPP is exactly right for America.
The media, not Obama, are those prematurely talking about Legacy.
So many, so eager, to lay blame at the feet of our president with little knowledge for their decisions. Who among all the commentors here knows the truth of White House decision making. I will go out on a limb and suggest someone or some country has a cannon aimed at his head unless he does their bidding. He is, after all, our first black president, which so many decry. I, however, believe he thinks long and hard beyond his constitutional knowledge and desire for the best of our country. Let me guess. How many corporate executives know or understand their CEO's agenda and the reason for it?
So many, so eager, to lay blame at the feet of our president with little knowledge for their decisions. Who among all the commentors here knows the truth of White House decision making. I will go out on a limb and suggest someone or some country has a cannon aimed at his head unless he does their bidding. He is, after all, our first black president, which so many decry. I, however, believe he thinks long and hard beyond his constitutional knowledge and desire for the best of our country. Let me guess. How many corporate executives know or understand their CEO's agenda and the reason for it?
Here's some more nonsense JP from an uneducated citizen.
Economists agree it is a good thing? Good for who?
Have you LOOKED at those rules, and who they will benefit and hurt?
Congress protected my children and grandchildren.
Like NAFTA, The TPP will benefit huge multi-national corporations, and their benefactors foremost, and hurt hundreds of millions economically over the next decade. To quote another uneducated citizen: "TPP was negotiated in secret, in spite of the President's speeches about transparency? And a trade deal that gives up US independence on parts of its court system and intellectual property laws, reduces the availability of generic drugs, and gives second thrift to the environment while expanding visa categories for foreign workers employed by business as drafts published by Wikileaks show? And a trade deal that places a fig leaf with training for displaced workers, but pays it with cuts to Medicare?"
Economists agree it is a good thing? Good for who?
Have you LOOKED at those rules, and who they will benefit and hurt?
Congress protected my children and grandchildren.
Like NAFTA, The TPP will benefit huge multi-national corporations, and their benefactors foremost, and hurt hundreds of millions economically over the next decade. To quote another uneducated citizen: "TPP was negotiated in secret, in spite of the President's speeches about transparency? And a trade deal that gives up US independence on parts of its court system and intellectual property laws, reduces the availability of generic drugs, and gives second thrift to the environment while expanding visa categories for foreign workers employed by business as drafts published by Wikileaks show? And a trade deal that places a fig leaf with training for displaced workers, but pays it with cuts to Medicare?"
There appears to be a lack of understanding of not only the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the traditional role of the President in negotiating trade deal on behalf of the U.S., but the role of China in the modern world.
The TPP has been around for 10 years; anyone can access at the very least an executive summary and general sense of its contents. The Constitution provides for the President to negotiate treaties on behalf of the U.S., with Congress approving them and voting them into law, or rejecting them. Fast-tracking merely provides the President with the general points that Congress wants to see in a final agreement and agrees to either approve or reject but not negotiate or filibuster. Congress retains all its authority and power, but does not get involved with the actual negotiation. The current Congress wants -- and that's where all this "secrecy" nonsense originated -- to negotiate an agreement that they will then give to the President to propose, with no negotiation wiggle room. That's not how trade deals get done; this would render the U.S helpless at the international negotiation table. The President not only will negotiate a deal that is good for U.S. workers, he will influence other countries to adopt U.S. standards for workers, currency, the environment and other values. Finally, China is a huge threat, militarily and economically, in the Asia-Pacific; as a TPP partner, the U.S. provides a counterweight and protects U.S. interests in this crucial region.
The TPP has been around for 10 years; anyone can access at the very least an executive summary and general sense of its contents. The Constitution provides for the President to negotiate treaties on behalf of the U.S., with Congress approving them and voting them into law, or rejecting them. Fast-tracking merely provides the President with the general points that Congress wants to see in a final agreement and agrees to either approve or reject but not negotiate or filibuster. Congress retains all its authority and power, but does not get involved with the actual negotiation. The current Congress wants -- and that's where all this "secrecy" nonsense originated -- to negotiate an agreement that they will then give to the President to propose, with no negotiation wiggle room. That's not how trade deals get done; this would render the U.S helpless at the international negotiation table. The President not only will negotiate a deal that is good for U.S. workers, he will influence other countries to adopt U.S. standards for workers, currency, the environment and other values. Finally, China is a huge threat, militarily and economically, in the Asia-Pacific; as a TPP partner, the U.S. provides a counterweight and protects U.S. interests in this crucial region.
9
"The President not only will negotiate a deal that is good for U.S. workers, he will influence other countries to adopt U.S. standards for workers, currency, the environment and other values"
I laughed out loud here. It's also where I realized you don't actually understand the legal ramifications of the TPP, nor the intent of those behind it.
This is a gift to corporations and banks, and that means making an end run around US environmental, safety, and other laws.
Anyone trying to determine if I'm right or you are need only spend about 10 minutes on google.
I laughed out loud here. It's also where I realized you don't actually understand the legal ramifications of the TPP, nor the intent of those behind it.
This is a gift to corporations and banks, and that means making an end run around US environmental, safety, and other laws.
Anyone trying to determine if I'm right or you are need only spend about 10 minutes on google.
6
I applaud your starry-eyed optimism -- "The President not only will negotiate a deal that is good for U.S. workers, he will influence other countries to adopt U.S. standards for workers, currency, the environment and other values." -- and the mention of the Big Bad China, not to mention the lofty dismissal that anyone can access the general sense of its contents. So you are saying there is no secrecy involved, eh?
1
"That's not how trade deals get done;...." -The majority of the American People do not want another trade deal done in the same way as all of the previous trade deals which have always resulted in a loss of jobs for the American Worker. Also, getting a "general sense of its contents" and an "executive summary" is meaningless, the devil is in the details.
1
Trying to sell a secret trade agreement and allow more secret trade agreements to be negotiated for the next 6 years by the President is anti-democratic. This is truly a terrible precedent, and what Wikileaks has shown us about part of the trade agreement shows the agreement to be harmful to ordinary Americans.
24
Truly an excellent precedent pun.
Trade "deals" are all about which investors get the "Big Money" and How Much!
The Presidents' work is all about keeping damages to American citizens' lives down to the lowest number possible.
The Presidents' work is all about keeping damages to American citizens' lives down to the lowest number possible.
2
Oregon legislators who have been voting for the TPP: so-called Democrats Wyden, Blumenauer, and Bonamici. I'll be working against them in the next election.
20
Here's the deal: Remember, "If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" and "You'll save at least $2500 per year on health insurance"? When there is NO transparency in a bill and even Congress members to enter a windowless room and lose their cell phones, cameras and pens and paper to look at this document something not good for the U.S. is in it. People are tired of this secretive behavior. This deal is obviously bad for unions (from what we do know). IF the conditions were known to the public and all the Congress and everyone knew what is in the bill and it garners large support from the people then there is something to consider. *We wouldn't have needed a bill to retrain our workers that will lose their jobs under the TAA bill unless they are, indeed, going to lose jobs to foreigners.
12
Mr. Sanders has it right: June tenth’s San Francisco Chronicle answered for many Californians the questions of why (earlier this year) our gasoline prices jumped abruptly by a dollar a gallon when the rest of the nation was still experiencing a decline: Gasoline exports from the state’s refineries spiked to a record in December.
You see, our state has the strictest emissions standards in the nation, meaning that only in-state refineries produce and sell fuel less conducive to climate change. As the cost of crude continued to decline the price of the finished product dropped so low that exporting it made more sense than restricting its distribution to the relatively smaller local market. (California’s population is only 38 million, small compared to the global market.)
Thus by further easing trade restrictions only certain parts of our economy will pay the price for increases in profits by the usual large global traders.
I don’t want any special favors for myself. I just want my fellow voters (the bipedal variey) to recognize that expansion of trade agreements is a zero-sum game.
You see, our state has the strictest emissions standards in the nation, meaning that only in-state refineries produce and sell fuel less conducive to climate change. As the cost of crude continued to decline the price of the finished product dropped so low that exporting it made more sense than restricting its distribution to the relatively smaller local market. (California’s population is only 38 million, small compared to the global market.)
Thus by further easing trade restrictions only certain parts of our economy will pay the price for increases in profits by the usual large global traders.
I don’t want any special favors for myself. I just want my fellow voters (the bipedal variey) to recognize that expansion of trade agreements is a zero-sum game.
11
While I agree with almost all of your comment, I wanted to point out that the TPP and its ilk are NOT trade deals. They are corporate deregulation deals. Trade has almost nothing to do with them.
The second point is that international agreements can be zero sum where the people win and the corporations lose, not where one country is played against others.
The second point is that international agreements can be zero sum where the people win and the corporations lose, not where one country is played against others.
People don't matter, corporations do. The corporatists who put out the trade deal had one thing in mind: making things better for their bottom line. And then there's the Asian pivot which calls for China's growth to be stopped since it impinges on our growth and world hegemony plans. But there's no stopping China's growth. They, along with Russia, developed a transportation structure along with an energy infrastructure across the Eurasian landmass that our Navy patrolling the seas can't compete with. They are the new economic center. Even if passed, the new trade bill will not be that profound. Obama needs to find a winning plan for America to work together with Russia and China.
8
Japan has had massive demonstrations against this "trade" package, seeing nothing in it to safeguard jobs or benefits.
This is a rosy-posey article, but lacks depth and brushes off the dissent against the package, both foreign and domestic.
Try harder.
This is a rosy-posey article, but lacks depth and brushes off the dissent against the package, both foreign and domestic.
Try harder.
19
Why are trade deals presented in the Times as an issue of Obama's legacy instead of as an opportunity to improve the lives of people?
Repeatedly over the recent past, the columns of the Times have been filled with this topic while thousands of people and many members of Congress have been talking about their concern that these "legacy-shaping" agreements will contribute to global warming, destroy the incomes of millions, and undermine the sovereignty of countries.
What is going on in the minds of Times editors, reporters and management?
Repeatedly over the recent past, the columns of the Times have been filled with this topic while thousands of people and many members of Congress have been talking about their concern that these "legacy-shaping" agreements will contribute to global warming, destroy the incomes of millions, and undermine the sovereignty of countries.
What is going on in the minds of Times editors, reporters and management?
13
After being told lies about NAFTA and the WTO why should anyone be surpresed that people are reluctant to think this bill a good thing. These trade agreements have been overwhelming weighted against the US. And this one is so bad it has to include money to re-train people for the inevitable job loss. And just what jobs will they be retraining them for exactly?
14
Show us the deal and let us decide. That only the largest corporations have spent hours and hours adding, subtracting, and modifying the language of this 'deal' and the American people have not is all the information I need to vote no. Curiously, is that not obvious?
The optimist in me would like to think President Obama is aware of that and is engaged in some Machiavellian dance to torpedo his own efforts - knowing full-well we cannot get behind that which we are barred from seeing.
The realist in me sees scant evidence for such optimism given the President has done little to curb the death of Democracy at the hands of the corporate state and Plutocracy. The realist also has complete 'faith' that most FauxNews watchers, GOP members, and some Democrats would be more inclined to endorse the TPP if it contained a preamble that stated 'free markets is what this is about so you need not read further. Vote Yes!'. But, now we know, from TPP documents leaked by Wikileaks, that it will weaken already anemic tariffs, accelerate intellectual property wars in which small and mid-cap companies have little leverage, and I'd argue knowingly, remove rights from the rest of us proletariat class.
The pessimist sees himself as one of Seligman's 'subjects' affirming helplessness can be learned and there is nothing that can be done until a French-like revolution unfolds to stem the tide of Oligarchy. But, given how poorly we treat one another economically, I see no hope for this either.
The optimist in me would like to think President Obama is aware of that and is engaged in some Machiavellian dance to torpedo his own efforts - knowing full-well we cannot get behind that which we are barred from seeing.
The realist in me sees scant evidence for such optimism given the President has done little to curb the death of Democracy at the hands of the corporate state and Plutocracy. The realist also has complete 'faith' that most FauxNews watchers, GOP members, and some Democrats would be more inclined to endorse the TPP if it contained a preamble that stated 'free markets is what this is about so you need not read further. Vote Yes!'. But, now we know, from TPP documents leaked by Wikileaks, that it will weaken already anemic tariffs, accelerate intellectual property wars in which small and mid-cap companies have little leverage, and I'd argue knowingly, remove rights from the rest of us proletariat class.
The pessimist sees himself as one of Seligman's 'subjects' affirming helplessness can be learned and there is nothing that can be done until a French-like revolution unfolds to stem the tide of Oligarchy. But, given how poorly we treat one another economically, I see no hope for this either.
10
Why do you think I care that he was "trying to shape his legacy" with this pact, or that you SAY he was trying to do so? I only care whether or not the pact is good for America.
13
I count myself among those grateful that for the moment this deal is halted. Whether it lives to see another day will depend on the same Democrats that tanked it on Friday.
I have never understood the President's obsession with a fast-track deal that contains a lot of really rotten stuff for average Americans, and indeed the world. Big breaks for big pharma who can ensure generics never see the light of day in regions of the world where money is so tight as to be nonexistent. The ability of foreign trade partners to sue the US if they don't like one of our regulations. Giving into the demands of other trade partners on things like country of origin laws.
Just the few leaked items that would affect our economy for the worse make me sense that the full piece of legislation would contain a plethora of other provisions that also seem like a smackdown of the American worker.
Also, without any attack on the currency manipulations used by many Asian nations, I just don't feel this bill can advance us economically at all. I keep shaking my head at a theoretically progressive president that says he's committed to lifting all boats, but then pushes a law that would only lift the yahts of mega-corporations.
What on earth is he thinking? Please, Mr. President, tell us how enriching Pfizer, Coca Cola, Nike, GE and Apple is going to help small businesses and US workers?
I have never understood the President's obsession with a fast-track deal that contains a lot of really rotten stuff for average Americans, and indeed the world. Big breaks for big pharma who can ensure generics never see the light of day in regions of the world where money is so tight as to be nonexistent. The ability of foreign trade partners to sue the US if they don't like one of our regulations. Giving into the demands of other trade partners on things like country of origin laws.
Just the few leaked items that would affect our economy for the worse make me sense that the full piece of legislation would contain a plethora of other provisions that also seem like a smackdown of the American worker.
Also, without any attack on the currency manipulations used by many Asian nations, I just don't feel this bill can advance us economically at all. I keep shaking my head at a theoretically progressive president that says he's committed to lifting all boats, but then pushes a law that would only lift the yahts of mega-corporations.
What on earth is he thinking? Please, Mr. President, tell us how enriching Pfizer, Coca Cola, Nike, GE and Apple is going to help small businesses and US workers?
35
Christine, the President's obsession with a fast-track deal is BECAUSE it contains "big breaks for big pharma,... The ability of foreign trade partners to sue the US if they don't like one of our regulations[, and g]iving into the demands of other trade partners on things like country of origin laws," among so many other destructive provisions.
And that is all because the only legacy that Mr. Obama truly cares about is to be a full-fledged member of the 0.01%.
And that is all because the only legacy that Mr. Obama truly cares about is to be a full-fledged member of the 0.01%.
i voted for Obama in the last election. I'm not against Obama. But I'm for the working class citizens in this country who have been hurt previously by NAFTA. I fear what this trade agreement would do to them. They're suffering far too much in this anemic economy. The NYT can cite all the experts or officials or politicians or professors it wants, None of them represent nor know what the working class has gone through since the Great Recession and continue to go through with the juggernaut of globalization. And no one really seems to care about the working class. That includes the NYT. The working class have been abandoned. They are just collateral damage. And I could care less about this defeat for Obama. Or how it is perceived overseas by leaders of countries in this deal. It was a deal negotiated in secrecy worthy of the Manhattan Project. And furthermore, Obama has already tarnished his historical legacy with his illegal drone wars, re-escalation in the Iraq War with bucolic "lily pads," and prosecuting whistleblowers against this national surveillance state under the Espionage Act. And now with this defeat to pass his trade bill, he can add just it to the list. But apparently Hillary got the message and changed her tune on the campaign trail. Her husband's support for NAFTA accounts for the payback that big labor took out on Obama. Democrats have become DINOs ( Democrat In Name Only). There has been a resurgence of progressives in the Democratic Party.
14
The American middle and working class actually want to work. Obama does not care if they have a job. He is more than willing to swap your gainful employment for government assistance to secure what he feels is his legacy. If you like the McJobs economy he has produced these last seven years you are going to love the TPP economy.
Oh, George Hoffman, i do agree with you! I voted for Obama twice, not out of any particular passion for him, but out of fear of what GOP policies would do to me. NAFTA and TPP, both out of yhe GOP/ Big Business corporate playbook... And then Obama supported TPP. It is hard to tell a lot of Dems from the GOP anymore, but I'm sure glad that Pelosi took a step forward in providing a clearer definition of what Dems are supposed to believe in, which is taking steps to protect those of us who are not in the 1%.
I agree with you, Carlos. I've always remained just a working-class guy from the industrial heartland all my life even in retirement.
Lack of leadership. When you have a President who acts like a monarch, you get people who will not cooperate.....because cooperation is a two way street. Obama is like that first time manager you had who thinks that his position alone gives him authority without realizing that respect is earned. That respect is earned thru the leadership you provide and Obama does not lead, he dictates and attempts to shame. He has wasted the last 6 years sitting alone in the WH signing executive orders and not sullying himself by working with either party in Congress. Now when it counts, his chickens are coming home to roost.
21
It is extremely "important" that's why it cannot be secret. The people of this country who will be affected by have the right to know its contents and then decide if they want to make changes before it is approved.
Obama has acted like a regular Republican about the TPP, and this goes along with the idea that when the ones who rule this country want to cut social benefits they regularly use a "Democratic" president, such as when Clinton cut down benefits while passing NAFTA.
Obama has acted like a regular Republican about the TPP, and this goes along with the idea that when the ones who rule this country want to cut social benefits they regularly use a "Democratic" president, such as when Clinton cut down benefits while passing NAFTA.
10
You really think that our members of congress would actually sit down and read the agreement? Much less UNDERSTAND what it says?
No they wait for their billionaire masters to tell them how to vote. They didn’t read the ACA, they don’t read ANY bill. They are too busy with luncheons with donors, flying to Vegas to meet with Shelly or weekends with Mitt in Utah.
They could put the entire text of the T.P.P. out there and it would be grabbed up by their donors..never to be read. The only requirement to be a US Rep is to be 25 y/o and to be a Senator is to be 30 y/o. You would think they would require at the very least a basic English literacy test.
No they wait for their billionaire masters to tell them how to vote. They didn’t read the ACA, they don’t read ANY bill. They are too busy with luncheons with donors, flying to Vegas to meet with Shelly or weekends with Mitt in Utah.
They could put the entire text of the T.P.P. out there and it would be grabbed up by their donors..never to be read. The only requirement to be a US Rep is to be 25 y/o and to be a Senator is to be 30 y/o. You would think they would require at the very least a basic English literacy test.
1
To Nuschler from Cambridge:
I agree with you that most Congress representatives do not read much of what they vote up or down, but making the contents of TPP public will be for the public like you or me or others to read and criticize as necessary. For the people of this country who care about Trade Pacts that will affect their lives.
I agree with you that most Congress representatives do not read much of what they vote up or down, but making the contents of TPP public will be for the public like you or me or others to read and criticize as necessary. For the people of this country who care about Trade Pacts that will affect their lives.
As I recall, many Democrats (not to mention Republicans) were tripping all over themselves to support Bill Clinton when he promoted NAFTA 20 years ago, even as H. Ross Perot (remember him?) was predicting the “giant sucking sound” we’d hear as American jobs headed south. Not very many years later, those same Democrats were admitting Perot’s prediction had come true. What surprised me then was that there’d been such “denial” in the first place. Of course that’s what NAFTA meant – it seemed obvious. This TPP may be more complicated, and on balance it may well be a good thing for the US – especially for those of us who are consumers but whose livelihoods won’t be affected by it. But, once again, just as with NAFTA, of course the TPP will be bad for US labor. A recent NYT article devoted considerable paper and ink to the CEO of Briggs & Stratton, a lawn-equipment manufacturer in Wisconsin who extolled the virtues of the TPP. He was eager to sell lawn mowers in China, he said. Please. A quadruple amputee can count on his fingers and toes how many lawn mowers Briggs & Stratton will ever sell in China. Whatever he may tell the NYT, that CEO wants to MAKE Briggs & Stratton lawn mowers overseas, not sell them there. That may be good for lawn mower buyers in the US, but is sure won’t be good for workers in the Briggs & Stratton plants that this CEO mentioned. They’ll all be “pursuing other opportunities.”
51
If the proposed extension of IP monopolies is put into law, it will be bad not only for consumers in New Zealand Japan and Australia, but also in the US. This is why the generic pharmaceutical organization opposes TPP. Think drug prices are bad now? Wait till the competition in the drug market is dramatically drained by TPP. This agreement is bad both for American labor and American consumers. Obama keeps saying that it is good for America's working families. Here's an idea: let America's working families write it, then, instead of representatives of Merk and Monsanto.
1
Knee capped by Warren, Pelosi and the unions, his own party doesn't trust him anymore after the litany of disingenuous statements he has made as well as his own arrogant attitude toward the democrats. The only time he knows them is when he wants something from them. The democrats are realizing that while these trade deals might be good for business, they are not a two way street for American labor. NAFTA anyone?
27
I agree, but Obama wasn't knee-capped, because that implies something dirty and unfair. Obama just plain got bull-rushed and tackled for a loss, Centrist35, to use football terms. If his knees are sore, that's because he doesn't have a good GOP offensive line with a good game plan, and he should just have thrown the ball away before being tacled for the loss. His opponents, so far, are just playing a smarter game than he.
Ukraine became a failed state due to a coup d’état engineered by Barack Obama’s state department. US policy wonks did not like the prospect of Ukraine joining Russia’s regional trade group called the Eurasian Customs Union instead of tilting toward NATO and the European Union. So, we paid for and enabled a coalition of crypto-fascists to rout the duly elected president.
One of the first acts of the US-backed new regime was to declare punishment of Russian language speakers, and so the predominately Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine revolted. Russia reacted to all this instability by seizing the Crimean peninsula, which had been part of Russia proper both before and through much of the Soviet chapter of history. The Crimea contained Russia’s only warm water seaports and naval bases.
Was Vladimir Putin acting irresponsibly in this case? The opposite would be a much more logical conclusion. And when else in the entire history of the USA all the way back to George Washington did any government official declare Ukraine to be America’s business?
Answer: Never. Reason: we have no legitimate interests in that corner of the world. So why in the early 21st century are we making this such a sore spot in our foreign relations? Because our waning influence in the world, in turn a product of our inattention to our own economic and other problems at home, is driving America's neocon, militarist Deep State crazy.
The rest of the world sees this for exactly what it is.
One of the first acts of the US-backed new regime was to declare punishment of Russian language speakers, and so the predominately Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine revolted. Russia reacted to all this instability by seizing the Crimean peninsula, which had been part of Russia proper both before and through much of the Soviet chapter of history. The Crimea contained Russia’s only warm water seaports and naval bases.
Was Vladimir Putin acting irresponsibly in this case? The opposite would be a much more logical conclusion. And when else in the entire history of the USA all the way back to George Washington did any government official declare Ukraine to be America’s business?
Answer: Never. Reason: we have no legitimate interests in that corner of the world. So why in the early 21st century are we making this such a sore spot in our foreign relations? Because our waning influence in the world, in turn a product of our inattention to our own economic and other problems at home, is driving America's neocon, militarist Deep State crazy.
The rest of the world sees this for exactly what it is.
14
Wow, it's amazing how Russian disinformation makes itself so widespread on the NYT website. There is, in the real world, no evidence that the U.S. had anything to do with events in Ukraine. Conspiracy theorists like to talk about an audio recording of Nuland discussing the events, but so what?
5
So now I understand why the Russians are fighting their way into the Ukraine.
Because the Ukrainian people want them to. As a sign of welcome.
Thanks, Delicate Genius.
Because the Ukrainian people want them to. As a sign of welcome.
Thanks, Delicate Genius.
2
I have never seen so many distortions of history. When the USSR broke up there was a treaty signed by several world powers including Russia that guaranteed the integrity of the borders of Ukraine in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. Did this warped version of history originate out of the agency in St Petersburg ?
The document is secret to keep the content from the Chinese. Let's all grow up for a second.
2
False mi:
China can get as many copies of the TPP as it wants from the Pacific Rim countries which are geographically and politically closer. The Chinese do not need to steal the contents from the U.S. when it is a lot easier to get it in exchange for some cash, goods, or political support to the pseudo democratic countries included in the TPP. The TPP countries will actually be a backdoor entrance for China and Russia.
China can get as many copies of the TPP as it wants from the Pacific Rim countries which are geographically and politically closer. The Chinese do not need to steal the contents from the U.S. when it is a lot easier to get it in exchange for some cash, goods, or political support to the pseudo democratic countries included in the TPP. The TPP countries will actually be a backdoor entrance for China and Russia.
2
Chances are they've already hacked their way into it!
1
I thought China and the US were friends and trading partners - everywhere I look I see Made In China labels.
Please explain why we are friends with China but afraid of China, it does not make sense to say keep everything secret because we're afraid of China.
Please explain why we are friends with China but afraid of China, it does not make sense to say keep everything secret because we're afraid of China.
The idea that a well educated, freely engaged public with an optimistic view of the future and a can do attitude can't compete in a growing world economy with low wage, poorly educated and poorly engaged people, shows just how far this country has fallen.
We are no longer well educated, freely engaged or optimistic. The world class infrastructure that was built over half a century ago is crumbling, we have lost wars on multiple continents. We have been driven to spying on our own and collecting unlimited data on our citizens while we engage in black ops rubber stamped by secret courts.
The comments here show a public loaded with self doubt and fear. We need new leadership and more importantly massive investment not only for the tangible benefits but to correct the psychological damage that this country is suffering at it's very core.
We are no longer well educated, freely engaged or optimistic. The world class infrastructure that was built over half a century ago is crumbling, we have lost wars on multiple continents. We have been driven to spying on our own and collecting unlimited data on our citizens while we engage in black ops rubber stamped by secret courts.
The comments here show a public loaded with self doubt and fear. We need new leadership and more importantly massive investment not only for the tangible benefits but to correct the psychological damage that this country is suffering at it's very core.
8
I also find it incomprehensible that a bill that will shape trade with the largest future economies is only available to congress and is classified. Are there military secrets in the trade bill or is it just inconvenient for the citizens of this nation to know what our legislators are voting on? It's also hard to comprehend why our President, if this is so critical, doesn't address the nation about its provisions or, at a minimum, hold a press conference and answer questions about it. Elizabeth Warren and her fellow Democrats may be dead wrong about it but I'd want to hear more about why that is the case than an off hand remark to that effect by the President.
7
Why is every story about Obama primarily concerned with his legacy? Is the NYT Obama's press office? Why doesn't the NYT write as a representative of the people? I don't care how anything Obama does effects his legacy! He has failed. I do care that Obama's actions have left the Middle East in turmoil, our economy on life support, Russia and China increasingly provocative, our military weaker than it was before World War I and our government personnel records in the hands of our enemies. Obama has weakened the USA in every way he could. That is his legacy.
10
Well said Kathryn..
The last item you mentioned is actually the consequence of failing to properly fund government agencies, like what Ryan is always talking about, so that they could do their jobs, which include securitizing records.
Sorry, but our military has never been stronger. We spend more than the 2nd through 8th biggest-spending countries on defense, combined! If you believe there's another measure of military strength, please enlighten us. We've poured money down the black hole of defense spending since 9/11 with great expectations (and assurances), but as our country's infrastructure has been crumbling, we don't seem to be realizing much return on that huge investment. Indeed, the wars we began under the last president only gave us even more debt.
If having the strongest military on the planet is not enough, we should realize the investment has not been, and will never be, logical nor prudent.
It's more than obvious that Eisenhower's "beware the military-industrial complex" speech was horribly accurate.
If having the strongest military on the planet is not enough, we should realize the investment has not been, and will never be, logical nor prudent.
It's more than obvious that Eisenhower's "beware the military-industrial complex" speech was horribly accurate.
President Obama doesn't need to do anything to shape a legacy. His presidency is historic and comes with a built-in legacy. Analyzing his tenure in normal, almost quaint, presidential terms makes no sense. The trade deal is a big piece of business, but a normal business-as-usual thing. The fact this man served with dignity in the face of a denigrating and ceaseless assault in more than enough 'legacy' He will enter our history books as one of our great presidents.
5
"Surely you Jest" ...
If this the making of a "Great" President ... a majority of the American People, plus most sane Political and Military Advisers are surely mistaken...
If this the making of a "Great" President ... a majority of the American People, plus most sane Political and Military Advisers are surely mistaken...
Life on this planet was almost extinguished in 1961 by the Cuban missile crisis. Obama took the first, necessary, step towards reconciling with Cuba, putting an end to the residue of hostility from this event. This is historic in and of itself. We could perhaps concentrate on a mutually satisfying, non-secret, trade agreement among the Americas, and do at least as well in terms of overall economic activity. The TPP will do nothing to stop China's aggression.
I would say that Mr. Obama's legacy will concern the ACA, not the TPP. To the end of my days, I will never understand why the Republicans are so set against their constituents' having healthcare. Is it just hatred of that uppity half-breed who had the audacity to win two terms?
This issue places in clear focus the leadership flaws of Mr. Obama. This pact was negotiated for ten years and is part of this man's "legacy". If so, one would expect him to seek the support of the public and of Congress. Instead, he made no effort to explain to the public why this is on balance good for the country, or to work hard to get sufficient support in Congress.
I honesty do not know if this is a good pact for the nation as a whole, as the majority of the "information" on this comes from advocates on both sides in opinion pieces. It has become, as others note, politically toxic at this point.
Obama always acted like he is above it all, the smartest guy in the room who cannot deign to roll up his sleeves and do the dirty work. he got away with this vis-a-vis Congress by vilifying Rs, with Ds cheering him on. But his approach towards Congress as a whole has come back to haunt him.
I honesty do not know if this is a good pact for the nation as a whole, as the majority of the "information" on this comes from advocates on both sides in opinion pieces. It has become, as others note, politically toxic at this point.
Obama always acted like he is above it all, the smartest guy in the room who cannot deign to roll up his sleeves and do the dirty work. he got away with this vis-a-vis Congress by vilifying Rs, with Ds cheering him on. But his approach towards Congress as a whole has come back to haunt him.
5
Consider the environmental progress TPP would bring:
Enforcement of illegal logging, enforcement of fish over harvesting, reducing tariffs on environmentally friendly products and those produced in an environmentally friendly manner, & regulations on production to meet environmental standards for manufacturing
It also addresses climate change. Including; requirements for low energy manufacturing, wind, solar, nuclear & a staple of the deal is carbon reduction.
Stand alone climate agreements would never be passed in the US. But climate initiatives worked into trade agreements can accomplish the same thing.
corporations will need to abide by the standards of the TPP agreement in order to do business with these nations. So they are bound by the environmental and labor standards.
This has vast power as the TPP nations have a combined GDP of $27 trillion and the motivation to comply is tied to huge profit.
These large agreements have impact beyond the TPP nations. If a large corporation is complying with environmental standards for a very large market, then it's going to spill over to all their manufacturing exported to other nations or sold domestically. As they aren't going to manufacture goods according to wildly varying standards. So all future trade agreements will need to be uniform and follow the same standards.
This is a watershed moment. But this time is progressives obstructing progress.
Enforcement of illegal logging, enforcement of fish over harvesting, reducing tariffs on environmentally friendly products and those produced in an environmentally friendly manner, & regulations on production to meet environmental standards for manufacturing
It also addresses climate change. Including; requirements for low energy manufacturing, wind, solar, nuclear & a staple of the deal is carbon reduction.
Stand alone climate agreements would never be passed in the US. But climate initiatives worked into trade agreements can accomplish the same thing.
corporations will need to abide by the standards of the TPP agreement in order to do business with these nations. So they are bound by the environmental and labor standards.
This has vast power as the TPP nations have a combined GDP of $27 trillion and the motivation to comply is tied to huge profit.
These large agreements have impact beyond the TPP nations. If a large corporation is complying with environmental standards for a very large market, then it's going to spill over to all their manufacturing exported to other nations or sold domestically. As they aren't going to manufacture goods according to wildly varying standards. So all future trade agreements will need to be uniform and follow the same standards.
This is a watershed moment. But this time is progressives obstructing progress.
3
Since the trade agreement is secret, how do you know this?
Only if it's true.
Unfortunately this article is more narcissistic nonsense. It has been a nonstop President’s legacy crusade where it should be a leadership crusade with accountability. This President has demonstrated little acumen in international diplomacy on any front with no trade credibility at home or abroad. He is little more than an ideologue with little comprehension beyond the expected polarizing talking points. It is sad to witness a continual apologetic press, fraught with double standards.
Trade is what cooperative civilization is based upon and yet this administration has purely political motivations and thus unable to see through the morass of their own making.
Trade is what cooperative civilization is based upon and yet this administration has purely political motivations and thus unable to see through the morass of their own making.
6
This whole affair does not pass the stink test. In fact, it wreaks to high heaven. If Obama is on the same page as Boehner, and not Pelosi, something is seriously askew.
12
Obama's legacy, in virtually any area one cares to think of, is this: unkept promise.
18
Obama's legacy? Who cares about his 'legacy'? When he is out of office he'll become a multimillionaire riding the corporate money train just like his friends the Clintons, while the rest of us real people will have to suffer because of his bad policies and poor leadership. Any time I hear 'legacy' it only means some corporate bought and paid for policy to benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99%. The less legacy the better as far as I'm concerned.
28
I guess we ordinary folk are more concerned with our own stagnating wages, problems here at home, and our children's job prospects than with President Obama's "Legacy." How selfish of us!
24
Obama could pass this in a red hot second. Trade the nation-sapping H1B for it. If TPP were really so important, he'd already have done so.
7
It is disconcerting to me that the story is correctly about Mr. Obama's desire to leave a legacy as opposed to an excellent trade deal. With the pressure of his waning Presidency just ahead, I for one am glad that the Democrats are engaged in looking out for the best interests of the American worker and public over getting a sub standard trade deal so that the President can say that he did something good and useful. So, understand clearly, the word "legacy" for a president can also be termed "conflict of interest".
14
Here's a good way to convince people TPP is a great treaty: Let them read it.
What's that? It's a secret only insider corporate cronies can read and compose?
Need we say more?
What's that? It's a secret only insider corporate cronies can read and compose?
Need we say more?
22
House Democrats: Stand tall against this giveaway. None of us would buy a car without checking that it had four wheels. We are not allowed to know anything about TPP except "trust me" from the president. No sale. Southern state House members with Toyota, Nissan and VW plants, get ready for closures. My House rep, Paul Tonko, D-Amsterdam in New York state, gets it. Hold fast, Mr. Tonko, and stop this bad deal.
24
President Obama won the election in 2008 as an insurgent candidate that defeated the institutional favorite Hilary Clinton. Obama has been elitist and institutional since his election even claiming to be a blue dog democrat. HIs trashing around in 2010-2012 with the austerity mania gripping the Congress did not change many peoples view that he was a center right politician who won the election as a faux populist. Certainly not a man who would change the course in Washington away from Bill Clinton's misguided Bridge to the 21st Century and George Bush's disastrous ownership society. What value is Obama's legacy when every trade deal in the recent past has been a net loser for the middle class and workers in this country? The business geniuses who since the 1980s have benefitted hugely from these imbalanced trade deals uniformly refuse to share the benefits with the rest of the populace through better jobs or higher pay. In fact the exact opposite has been the case.
22
Just because the President is wrong on this does not negate that the GOP has done NOTHING on jobs, alternate health plans and tax rehaul. After all, it is the repubs who want this deal.
1
The New York Times and other papers keep deeming this horrible bill key to President Obama's legacy, but according to whom is the TPP central to his legacy? Did he SAY this? Who is saying this? Why do we keep hearing this, and who is this supposed assertion of a legacy for?
This president already has a substantial legacy that will place him among the best and worst presidents in US history. On the plus side, he saved the country from financial collapse, and presides over a growing economy, especially for the very rich; put us on the path to energy security more than any other president; passed the most sweeping health care law that has brought health insurance to 16 million more Americans and prevented over 169 million from losing their coverage because of pre-existing conditions; passed the strongest financial reform bill in several generations; pushed for visionary equality legislation (ending DOMA and DADT); and appointed two brilliant women to the Supreme Court.
On the deficit side there are the drones; Guantánamo (which he didn't start but didn't end either); growing inequality; the horrible secrecy and prosecution of whistleblowers; and the ongoing mess in the Middle East.
With all of this to speak for, why is TPP central to his legacy? For whom? Global corporations? Billionaires? Give us a break!
This president already has a substantial legacy that will place him among the best and worst presidents in US history. On the plus side, he saved the country from financial collapse, and presides over a growing economy, especially for the very rich; put us on the path to energy security more than any other president; passed the most sweeping health care law that has brought health insurance to 16 million more Americans and prevented over 169 million from losing their coverage because of pre-existing conditions; passed the strongest financial reform bill in several generations; pushed for visionary equality legislation (ending DOMA and DADT); and appointed two brilliant women to the Supreme Court.
On the deficit side there are the drones; Guantánamo (which he didn't start but didn't end either); growing inequality; the horrible secrecy and prosecution of whistleblowers; and the ongoing mess in the Middle East.
With all of this to speak for, why is TPP central to his legacy? For whom? Global corporations? Billionaires? Give us a break!
20
Those opposing this deal, including me, agree that "it is important."
That is why we are opposing it despite the desires of Obama. If it wasn't important, we'd just give him what he wants.
He's gone Republican on this. They are the only ones supporting him on this.
This puts money interests over peoples' interests. It is secret from everyone but the private money interests invited to shape the deal their way.
What is known about it is a wipeout of American interests in favor of multinational corporate interests.
Obama would have to show us much more than that it is "important." He can't, because it is yet another giveaway of our interests to big money.
That is why we are opposing it despite the desires of Obama. If it wasn't important, we'd just give him what he wants.
He's gone Republican on this. They are the only ones supporting him on this.
This puts money interests over peoples' interests. It is secret from everyone but the private money interests invited to shape the deal their way.
What is known about it is a wipeout of American interests in favor of multinational corporate interests.
Obama would have to show us much more than that it is "important." He can't, because it is yet another giveaway of our interests to big money.
28
"He's gone Republican on this."
On this?!?
Obama has been Republican on almost all economic issues since he voted to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped W spy on us illegally--and that was during the 2008 campaign.
He has been trying to shape a Grand Bargain™ giving away our social safety net, has propagated the Republican lie that national budgets are the equivalent of family budgets (even though families can't issue their own currency), has done nothing to control the big banks that destroyed the economy and immiserated millions around the world, and has never "put on a comfortable pair of shoes [and] walk[ed] on that picket line with you, as president of the United States of America."
His "legacy" was shaped from the beginning by his Republican worldview and his desire to comfort the comfortable. His true legacy will be a VERY comfortable post-presidential sinecure among his 0.01 percent supporters.
On this?!?
Obama has been Republican on almost all economic issues since he voted to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped W spy on us illegally--and that was during the 2008 campaign.
He has been trying to shape a Grand Bargain™ giving away our social safety net, has propagated the Republican lie that national budgets are the equivalent of family budgets (even though families can't issue their own currency), has done nothing to control the big banks that destroyed the economy and immiserated millions around the world, and has never "put on a comfortable pair of shoes [and] walk[ed] on that picket line with you, as president of the United States of America."
His "legacy" was shaped from the beginning by his Republican worldview and his desire to comfort the comfortable. His true legacy will be a VERY comfortable post-presidential sinecure among his 0.01 percent supporters.
2
Very fine analysis by Peter Baker. It reveals to me a core dichotomy that Mr. Obama did not take care to address: TPPs geopolitical and economic divergence. As Walter Lehman and Peter Petri admonished, there is no momentum on this deal without recognizing the economic component. And that's what people here feel. Bernie Sanders states the issue succinctly:
“'We need to regroup and come up with a trade policy which demands that corporate America start investing in this country rather than in countries all over the world,' Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on 'Face the Nation' on CBS."
Mr. Obama is the president, not just another supporter of this bill. He has to explain it to the American people, a job made more difficult in the light of the many jobs that they have lost. The big flaw in TPP's legislation is the lack of a reasonable explanation how this bill will return jobs to the US. The bill is classified, further encouraging distrust.
I am no presidential historian, but in my time, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton all were "explainers-in-chief". They all had their vagaries, but they were conscious of the necessity of winning over the American people. Sometimes they failed at that, such as with Nixon in Watergate and Reagan with Iran-Contra, and they suffered.
Mr. Obama needed to be the "explainer-in-chief" for this bill.
“'We need to regroup and come up with a trade policy which demands that corporate America start investing in this country rather than in countries all over the world,' Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on 'Face the Nation' on CBS."
Mr. Obama is the president, not just another supporter of this bill. He has to explain it to the American people, a job made more difficult in the light of the many jobs that they have lost. The big flaw in TPP's legislation is the lack of a reasonable explanation how this bill will return jobs to the US. The bill is classified, further encouraging distrust.
I am no presidential historian, but in my time, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton all were "explainers-in-chief". They all had their vagaries, but they were conscious of the necessity of winning over the American people. Sometimes they failed at that, such as with Nixon in Watergate and Reagan with Iran-Contra, and they suffered.
Mr. Obama needed to be the "explainer-in-chief" for this bill.
8
The American people have no reason to care about President Obama’s so-called legacy. Are only concern should be our lives.
As I understand it, multinational corporations gain tangible financial benefits from this treaty – including a right to collect monetary damages when nation states rightfully attempt to shield themselves from often predatory corporate practices.
In contrast, labor acquires no ability to materially confront these same multinationals when they exploit workers paid serf-like wages – nor any ability to collect damages when workers in first world nations are disenfranchised by these policies, and this disenfranchisement leads to materially weaker national economies, and ever more pronounced income inequality.
Why should corporations be eligible for damages when workers and nation states are not?
Why should corporations have rights that American, Canadian, or Japanese workers do not acquire?
America can either become a workers state, a welfare state, or a Wal-Mart state. Given the provisions of this treaty that we know of, there can be no question that it would only quicken our transformation into a Wal-Mart state.
If the established wisdom is that the only way that America can confront China is by turning more and more its citizens into the kind of serfs that this loathsome totalitarian state exploits, then the time has come to flush our establishment down the proverbial toilet – and start over.
As I understand it, multinational corporations gain tangible financial benefits from this treaty – including a right to collect monetary damages when nation states rightfully attempt to shield themselves from often predatory corporate practices.
In contrast, labor acquires no ability to materially confront these same multinationals when they exploit workers paid serf-like wages – nor any ability to collect damages when workers in first world nations are disenfranchised by these policies, and this disenfranchisement leads to materially weaker national economies, and ever more pronounced income inequality.
Why should corporations be eligible for damages when workers and nation states are not?
Why should corporations have rights that American, Canadian, or Japanese workers do not acquire?
America can either become a workers state, a welfare state, or a Wal-Mart state. Given the provisions of this treaty that we know of, there can be no question that it would only quicken our transformation into a Wal-Mart state.
If the established wisdom is that the only way that America can confront China is by turning more and more its citizens into the kind of serfs that this loathsome totalitarian state exploits, then the time has come to flush our establishment down the proverbial toilet – and start over.
80
Obviously, that 2nd sentence should have begun with 'Our".
4
Obama should be thanking his lucky stars that this job killing deal will not be his legacy.
56
Obama already has his legacy - most SECRETIVE President in history. This is a pattern going back to his dealing with Tony Rezko and also with sealing his college transcript. You might get do-overs in campaigns and college classes, but not in the Presidency.
President Obama didn't want us knowing what was in his secret TPP agreement, even tying the hands of Congress, gagging them, and threatening them with prosecution for discussing the content with the public or anyone else. It was only due to the courage of Julian Assange and Wikileaks that we knew the President was helping usurp the sovereignty of nations by conveying their power to corporations. Even the fact that there was a 5 year secrecy requirement built into the TPP was kept a secret until Wikileaks revealed it to us.
Let's not forget that President Obama did not want us to EVER know about his mass surveillance programs. He allowed Intelligence Director Clapper to keep serving after lying under oath to Congress so he could maintain the lie that mass surveillance of Americans wasn't taking place. It was only due to the courage of Edward Snowden that we know now what this President was doing.
Barack Obama would be exactly the type that secretive intelligence agencies try to recruit in college. Too bad he missed his calling. Or maybe he didn't.
President Obama didn't want us knowing what was in his secret TPP agreement, even tying the hands of Congress, gagging them, and threatening them with prosecution for discussing the content with the public or anyone else. It was only due to the courage of Julian Assange and Wikileaks that we knew the President was helping usurp the sovereignty of nations by conveying their power to corporations. Even the fact that there was a 5 year secrecy requirement built into the TPP was kept a secret until Wikileaks revealed it to us.
Let's not forget that President Obama did not want us to EVER know about his mass surveillance programs. He allowed Intelligence Director Clapper to keep serving after lying under oath to Congress so he could maintain the lie that mass surveillance of Americans wasn't taking place. It was only due to the courage of Edward Snowden that we know now what this President was doing.
Barack Obama would be exactly the type that secretive intelligence agencies try to recruit in college. Too bad he missed his calling. Or maybe he didn't.
28
"He allowed Intelligence Director Clapper to keep serving after lying under oath to Congress so he could maintain the lie that mass surveillance of Americans wasn't taking place. It was only due to the courage of Edward Snowden that we know now."
At a minimum Clapper should have lost his job and pension for his misconduct. At the maximum he should have been executed for treason.
At a minimum Clapper should have lost his job and pension for his misconduct. At the maximum he should have been executed for treason.
1
I am not a fan of President Obama and I have no idea if this trade bill is good or bad. But what does it have to do with the Obama legacy? Did people vote for him because of a trade bill? I think his presidency will be judged on other issues.
12
With the TPP negotiated in secret, with corporations having a say in the negotiations but not labor or Congress, President Obama's argument comes down to "trust me." Sorry, but for so many reasons, for those on the democratic side that is not enough.
61
I hope that small-d "democratic" was intentional. ;-)
Unfortunately, after this fiasco, I can no longer support him. Put a fork in it.
This looks and sounds like the House Dems are in the process of doing what we have seen the House Repubs do several times: put up a big public display of resisting the President in order to appease certain parts of their party, followed by passing the legislation.
9
If the TPA is really that great, then make the contents public. I will not support any trade (or other) deal without knowing the content. And President Obama, being a lawyer, should know better than asking us to take his, or anybody's, word without reading a contract. I applaud the Democrats who are standing up to his wrath and are looking out for our best interest.
66
"And President Obama, being a lawyer, should know better than asking us to take his, or anybody's, word without reading a contract."
That's because Obama is the type of lawyer that gives other lawyers the terrible reputation that they have.
That's because Obama is the type of lawyer that gives other lawyers the terrible reputation that they have.
1
Barack Obama was marketed to us by the Times and virtually the entire American news media as some sort of political savant, a genius so far above we mere mortals that he had to be President to save us from ourselves and end politics as usual.
What a difference six years makes.
I met Mr. Obama in 2004, when I worked at the DNC as a Kerry/Edwards (don't ask--I've been a registered Republican since 2008) volunteer. He struck me then as arrogant, unprepared--someone who skims things that you need to read to fully understand.
You would have thought Obama knew that you can't create your own legacy legitimately--its akin to wanting everybody in the room to say nice things about you so badly that you write nice things to say about yourself and hand them out in advance.
You build a legacy by doing your best, being honest, accountable and working hard. If you do that your legacy will be what legacies are--unsolicited tributes to you from others.
Most of you probably can't believe Obama did not know this very basic thing (my dad taught me that long before law school). Having met Obama and six years into his presidency, I am far from shocked.
What a difference six years makes.
I met Mr. Obama in 2004, when I worked at the DNC as a Kerry/Edwards (don't ask--I've been a registered Republican since 2008) volunteer. He struck me then as arrogant, unprepared--someone who skims things that you need to read to fully understand.
You would have thought Obama knew that you can't create your own legacy legitimately--its akin to wanting everybody in the room to say nice things about you so badly that you write nice things to say about yourself and hand them out in advance.
You build a legacy by doing your best, being honest, accountable and working hard. If you do that your legacy will be what legacies are--unsolicited tributes to you from others.
Most of you probably can't believe Obama did not know this very basic thing (my dad taught me that long before law school). Having met Obama and six years into his presidency, I am far from shocked.
44
Hey DCBarrister is Obama really that bad and I totally agree Obama is selling us out to the bankers and rich folks.
Would McCain and his VP wannabe, Ms. Palin would have been a better deal than Obama? Or Mitt and Ryan? Highly doubtful. I do not regret my votes for Obama but his actions have taught me a lesson. My financial security first, political party a far second.
1
Why did corporations get to write the bill but citizens couldn't even view it?
If it was so great, why couldn't President Obama list off the benefits?
What does it say about our democracy when one of the most important bills for our economy hides out in a black hole from which nothing can enter and nothing can escape?
President Obama has refused to address these questions so he got the result he deserved. If he wants public and congressional support, I'll point to this quote from Interstellar:
"You're gonna have to be specific, Mr. Cooper, right now."
If it was so great, why couldn't President Obama list off the benefits?
What does it say about our democracy when one of the most important bills for our economy hides out in a black hole from which nothing can enter and nothing can escape?
President Obama has refused to address these questions so he got the result he deserved. If he wants public and congressional support, I'll point to this quote from Interstellar:
"You're gonna have to be specific, Mr. Cooper, right now."
51
Did Mr. Baker read today's New York Times editorial on H1B Visa abuse? Here's the opening pargraph:
"It hardly needs saying that immigration policy should not undermine Americans’ jobs, wages or working conditions. The problem is that what some companies want — cheap, exploitable, disposable labor — is exactly what the system can be twisted into giving them."
The Trans-Pacific Partnership's provisions trade intellectual property protections for large US companies in exchange for a process by which corporations can force the repeal of labor, food safety, and environmental protections merely by showing that these laws hurt their profits.
Yes, adding melamine to pet food generates profits for the pet food companies - but it does so by poisoning our pets. Passing the TPP in its current form means handing such companies the ability to claim large payments from the US because our food safety laws hurt their profitability. It is a terrible bill, and would be a toxic legacy,
"It hardly needs saying that immigration policy should not undermine Americans’ jobs, wages or working conditions. The problem is that what some companies want — cheap, exploitable, disposable labor — is exactly what the system can be twisted into giving them."
The Trans-Pacific Partnership's provisions trade intellectual property protections for large US companies in exchange for a process by which corporations can force the repeal of labor, food safety, and environmental protections merely by showing that these laws hurt their profits.
Yes, adding melamine to pet food generates profits for the pet food companies - but it does so by poisoning our pets. Passing the TPP in its current form means handing such companies the ability to claim large payments from the US because our food safety laws hurt their profitability. It is a terrible bill, and would be a toxic legacy,
94
When Obama got elected, his economic advisors belittled Paul Volker, the only legitimately world class Fed Chairman in my lifetime.
He then stuffed billions of our dollars into the pockets of his buddies at Goldman, JP Morgan, etal.
Once he leaves the Whitehouse, moves to Brooklyn, and becomes "Senior Partner in Charge of Whatever," for a salary of $5 million a year, his legacy will be very clear.
He then stuffed billions of our dollars into the pockets of his buddies at Goldman, JP Morgan, etal.
Once he leaves the Whitehouse, moves to Brooklyn, and becomes "Senior Partner in Charge of Whatever," for a salary of $5 million a year, his legacy will be very clear.
10
$5 million a year? Pocket change - he'll make that in speaking fees in the first 6 months...
I'd be interested in an answer to the following question: which trade deal HASN'T been negotiated in private before it comes up for a vote in Congress?
Which one was not a corporate giveaway for being done in secret with only their input? See, you're right, and that's the problem.
This is good question, but times have changed. We have much more information at our fingertips with the intent. Plus, we were burned once with the "you have to pass it to know what's in it" mentality, and folks will not be fooled again on an important issue.
All I need to know about the TPP is that Paul Ryan and his brethren support it.
14
If the President is actually proud of this proposal, and wants it to be part of his "legacy," why doesn't he publicize the details and let citizens judge for themselves. We've been burned before.
30
President Obama did not "lose" his party. I would vote for President Obama again, given the chance. However, democrat lawmakers finally listened to Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and the vast majority of average Americans who finally realize how corporate/Wall Street/investor/lobbying misuse of trade agreements since GATT have decimated the American middle class and WE shouted NO - NO MORE. Good Job Democrats! Now Stand Your - and OUR - Ground.
13
This is strictly a deal (not trade) to give corporations dominance over our government. There is nothing in this bill that would help the American people (at least no one in the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999%). Give us details, in full, let it stand on its merits (which are none). Then they could vote.
15
The TPP failed because it is awful for American Citizens - it takes away their rights and transfers power from them into the hands of multi-national corporations. Right now Uruguay and New Zealand are being sued under similar trade agreements for tobacco labeling like in the US and the US just lost a suit over meat labeling. See the op-ed piece in the NYT about tobacco labeling by Michael Bloomberg a while back. Profits or expected profits cannot be allowed to trump the rights of citizens. It is hard to imagine what Obama was thinking when he continued to push this though.
35
He's not finished yet on this. This is the first thing he's stuck his neck out for, and isn't just a coincidence that it is the first thing that republicans back him for in 6 1/2 years. Something really stinks in Denmark, and it's coming from the white house.
That the WH and the Chamber of commerce among others, is dismayed that the TPP deal failed is a clear indication that they fail to understand the breath and depth of anger among Americans regarding the loss of middle class jobs. Regardless of race, gender, religion or political ideology, as Americans, we would like to see each other gainfully employed earning a fair salary. Witness the two red states rebelling against their GOP leadership and voting to raise the minimum wage. Moreover, we have a problem with multinationals having more authority over our local governments. Lastly, the secrecy is unacceptable. Trust me, doesn't work anymore.
51
Legacy indeed: "My administration will be the most transparent in history." Trade deal drafted in secret. Muslim video responsible for 9/11 Bengazi. If you like your doctor and health insurance you can keep it. The private sector is doing just fine, and after all, they didn't build that business, someone else made that happen. Declining working class income. Record numbers on public assistance. Incredible gains in wealth for the super rich. A make believe economy run by the FED. If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon. Desperate Americans cling to their guns and religion. Barry, the most divisive leader in US history. They are coming for capitalism next...
24
The real answer is that a lot of Democrats don't trust Obama and his justifications, For all the talk about the trade protections in this agreement, what people see what has become common, that these trade agreements become one sided, where countries like China and India can sell their goods and services in other countries, causing job losses, but while maintaining all kinds of laws, official and not, that keep foreign made goods and services out. So what is Obama going to do about China blocking facebook and amazon? What is he going to do with the back door tactics and de facto barriers India has in place? We have been told for the past 35 years that foreign trade floats all boats, but like supply side economics, what most people see is that the well off get even more well off and everyone else loses. If China and India were producing jobs that paid well enough to buy the goods and services they make, they would have a domestic market that could buy these goods, but instead their exports depend on cheap labor to drive their exports (both in material and yes, labor). Put it this way, do you believe Obama is really going to confront the Chinese when they play dirty, as they usually do, when he has done nothing about Chinese government sponsored hacking, and also basically gave Chinese companies listed on US markets the right to cheat? The man is all talk, and has nothing behind it.
15
Obama is more interested in his Bank account than his "Legacy" ( the new meaningless Media buzz-word) Obama is aiming to become as rich as the Clintons in the same way the Clintons did: Doing favors for the Rich.
He keep the Wall Street Bankers out of Jail, he blocked any meaningful reform of Wall Street, He keep the Oil Wars going and going and going.
This Trade Deal would have insured Obama's shot at those $500,000 speaking fees that made Clinton rich. That's his real legacy: He sold America out to the Rich.
He keep the Wall Street Bankers out of Jail, he blocked any meaningful reform of Wall Street, He keep the Oil Wars going and going and going.
This Trade Deal would have insured Obama's shot at those $500,000 speaking fees that made Clinton rich. That's his real legacy: He sold America out to the Rich.
13
I view a Line in this article as a definition as to why Obama is not received well here at home In the US:
"So the 12-nation trade deal Mr. Obama has been negotiating in Asia took on special meaning for a president eager to change the world."
His failure and problem is that he really believe that He is The Leader of the World and that is his own Failure for he has failed Us here at home while his concentration has been on bettering the word rather than conditions here at home! Hence, although I could not even begin to understand all the complexities of this trade deal I do believe that it would bad for this Country the US and only cause more separation of wealth here and abroad! And Yes I continue to view such as A Selling Out of America!
"So the 12-nation trade deal Mr. Obama has been negotiating in Asia took on special meaning for a president eager to change the world."
His failure and problem is that he really believe that He is The Leader of the World and that is his own Failure for he has failed Us here at home while his concentration has been on bettering the word rather than conditions here at home! Hence, although I could not even begin to understand all the complexities of this trade deal I do believe that it would bad for this Country the US and only cause more separation of wealth here and abroad! And Yes I continue to view such as A Selling Out of America!
7
Rule number one:
Never sign a contract you haven't read and don't fully understand.
The American people have not been allowed to read the contract. We can't get behind it and back the President unless we know what's in it.
If the President has staked his legacy on this agreement, he just shot himself in the foot for not making the agreement a public matter. We deserve to know. Something to do with democracy.
Never sign a contract you haven't read and don't fully understand.
The American people have not been allowed to read the contract. We can't get behind it and back the President unless we know what's in it.
If the President has staked his legacy on this agreement, he just shot himself in the foot for not making the agreement a public matter. We deserve to know. Something to do with democracy.
89
You mean like Dodd-Frank?
While the peculiar circumstances of the "the deal" are couched secrecy, and thus creating a justified suspicion, this is hardly the the center piece of what will emerge as this president's legacy. The most enduring quality of his presidency will be the deliberate deceptions and lies he repeatedly told. They will stand ultimately as the true measure of this man's character.
10
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership and a President’s Legacy"?
NO "legacy" is better that a BAD "legacy" or one with a documented bad path for the nation after the president leaves office
(cf. Clinton and NAFTA--sold with all the same lines and we've seen how well THAT worked out for jobs--Bush's legacy of torture, international illegality, and endless war, or even Johnson's legacy (Vietnam and social unrest, not vast social change as he'd planned for his Great Society)
Working about carving a place in history and being utterly egomaniacal about it at the end of a second terms seems to infect all presidents...sad...for the nation!
NO "legacy" is better that a BAD "legacy" or one with a documented bad path for the nation after the president leaves office
(cf. Clinton and NAFTA--sold with all the same lines and we've seen how well THAT worked out for jobs--Bush's legacy of torture, international illegality, and endless war, or even Johnson's legacy (Vietnam and social unrest, not vast social change as he'd planned for his Great Society)
Working about carving a place in history and being utterly egomaniacal about it at the end of a second terms seems to infect all presidents...sad...for the nation!
15
Johnson's Great Society has largely come to pass as the direct result of what he did. I'm sorry your inner clock does not allow for the necessity of how human minds and culture change over time. Social change of the kind that has taken place since 1960 does not happen on its own, people have to act intentionally to make it happen.
Thus we see the implications of a president with so little native talent for or interest in engaging in the political realities that are inevitable to his job, He may just squeak by on TPP, with or without expedited trade authority, ironically owing to Republican support. But, then again, he may not, in which case we all likely will lose.
But the damage to any leverage he has globally already has been done, and by Democrats. That means the vultures will gather, adversaries too large to be intimidated by prospects of the odd drone strike will press claims ... and we will lose, whether TPP eventually is ratified as a trade treaty or not.
This is an object lesson to Americans: we need to think very carefully when we vote for a president. It's a not a trivial choice and it brings high risks.
But the damage to any leverage he has globally already has been done, and by Democrats. That means the vultures will gather, adversaries too large to be intimidated by prospects of the odd drone strike will press claims ... and we will lose, whether TPP eventually is ratified as a trade treaty or not.
This is an object lesson to Americans: we need to think very carefully when we vote for a president. It's a not a trivial choice and it brings high risks.
11
I am a Democrat and I still think highly of Obama, but I don't care for the TPP because of the secrecy of the bill. If they can't tell us what is in it, it probably isn't anything we would want.
I am proud of Obama, but working people who know anything about the bill oppose it. That includes me.
I am proud of Obama, but working people who know anything about the bill oppose it. That includes me.
10
Elephant - sounds to me like you are laboring very hard to keep justifying you past "unwavering" support for a president who has been a complete failure as a leader. The sooner supporters like you realize this, the more credible your positions will become.
5
Did the secrecy of the Affordable Care Act bother you before it was passed?
More than anything, I am perplexed by the fact that Mr. Obama has selected this to be his legacy. There are so many other things the country has been clamoring for that are not paid for by corporate backers. In fact, Mr.Obama can even refer to the many speeches "candidate Obama" gave but didnt deliver on.
8
The White House barely tried to convince Americans that T.P.P. was worth passing. According to Paul Krugman, as a trade deal it is a marginally negative trade deal. It has been oversold. Better the President tell us the truth that this is mainly about political power in the Pacific region and very little to do with trade.
8
A few years ago I’d have said he was too naïve and trusting of professional bureaucrats and taken advantage of by people who managed to get close. Now I see that there is a large element of DINOism that was apparently there all along and just plain ignorance of or possibly he just doesn’t give a darn about the long term effects of what he is doing in this trade deal. The harm it does will be at least as damaging to the American People as NAFTA and the repeal of Glass/Steagal was, “negotiated” for us by the previous DINO, Clinton.
9
No nation in history has ever grown their economy from within. Either the US will lead trade in Asia, or China will.
2
The US grew its economy from within. The US became a great economy in its expansion within in the 19th Century, and entered the world economy already the biggest.
2
See your point, Mark Thomason. There's something to be said about "Brand America" and its appeal in other countries because it was associated with quality (e.g. passing stringent consumer protection laws) and produced by a skilled workforce. Just ask parents in China if they would rather buy Chinese baby formula or an American brand. Guess which one they would pick? Shame there are fewer products manufactured in the US nowadays.
2
If TTP is approved, then corporate feudalism will have replaced what is left of our democracy.
14
Hmmmmm. Presidential legacies . . . . . . . . . In a little over 16 months the pundits will be writing the President Obama legacy articles. Well, here we go.
He will finish office with the highest disapproval rating of modern presidents. Furthermore, he will have been the most ridiculed, loathed, hated, and divisive president of modern times. He will have led the Democratic Party to massive defeats that will resonate for decades. He will have continued the foreign policies of the post WWII era -- shoot first and never ask questions, even later -- paying no attention to the previous failures that he is emulating. He will have murdered countless hundreds of thousands of Muslims, destroyed businesses and homes, and leave office puzzled about why they hate us so much. He will have reinvigorated the cold war.
On the domestic front he will have established a quasi overly complicated national health insurance plan. Obamacare is really an 'increase the profit margin of health insurance companies' plan; good start, but think of how it might have been if he had only extended Medicare to all. He will have deported more illegal immigrants than any other president. (I won't even count the banking legislation, because half of it has never been put into regulations and the other regulations were written by the bankers.)
So what legacy? He has been another conservative president, one in a line starting with Jimmy Carter, who set low expectations and failed to meet them.
He will finish office with the highest disapproval rating of modern presidents. Furthermore, he will have been the most ridiculed, loathed, hated, and divisive president of modern times. He will have led the Democratic Party to massive defeats that will resonate for decades. He will have continued the foreign policies of the post WWII era -- shoot first and never ask questions, even later -- paying no attention to the previous failures that he is emulating. He will have murdered countless hundreds of thousands of Muslims, destroyed businesses and homes, and leave office puzzled about why they hate us so much. He will have reinvigorated the cold war.
On the domestic front he will have established a quasi overly complicated national health insurance plan. Obamacare is really an 'increase the profit margin of health insurance companies' plan; good start, but think of how it might have been if he had only extended Medicare to all. He will have deported more illegal immigrants than any other president. (I won't even count the banking legislation, because half of it has never been put into regulations and the other regulations were written by the bankers.)
So what legacy? He has been another conservative president, one in a line starting with Jimmy Carter, who set low expectations and failed to meet them.
5
The legacy of President Obama is cynical corrupt change that you can not believe in nor trust. The Trans-Pacific Partnership by excluding China and India misses about a third of the human race. Coupled with the military-industrial complex pivot towards Asia this will send our jobs and their money overseas. President Obama is well too the political right of both FDR and LBJ along with Ike and Nixon as well.
"He is a politician." Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. USMC/USN on then candidate Senator Obama.
"He is a politician." Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. USMC/USN on then candidate Senator Obama.
12
Hmmm; the proverbial rock and hard place - no good choice is bad planning on someones part. Or just an inevitable twist in the turning of global politics.
2
Whether TPP is a good thing or not is not clear to me.
Whether it's part of BO's legacy is also not clear.
But when the Republicans gave the president two thumbs up and a green light to proceed at will, it immediately put all of my sensors on high alert.
This is the same group that has been very vocal about saying no to pretty much everything the President has proposed since the day he walked into office.
To do a 180 degree flip on something this big and this important has "CAUTION" and "WARNING" written all over it.
Whether it's part of BO's legacy is also not clear.
But when the Republicans gave the president two thumbs up and a green light to proceed at will, it immediately put all of my sensors on high alert.
This is the same group that has been very vocal about saying no to pretty much everything the President has proposed since the day he walked into office.
To do a 180 degree flip on something this big and this important has "CAUTION" and "WARNING" written all over it.
10
The only legacy from recent trade deals is the negative one from NAFTA that stains Bill Clinton's remarkable record of economic success. The TPP, if you look at the graphic on total trade in previous articles, is largely a new NAFTA since 75 percent of the trade involves Canada and Mexico. And, half of the remaining 25 percent is with Japan. If President Obama is looking outside the country for a legacy, he'll find it in reaching a nuclear deal with Iran, developing a viable political, rather than military-only, strategy in the Middle East, and recognizing a State of Palestine. A solid peace is much more of a legacy than another dubious trade deal.
8
We were all told how NAFTA was going to benefit American workers. It hasn't. In fact, more jobs left and went to Mexico. The secrecy that Mr. Obama has insisted upon has left many of us feeling more than a little concerned. If there's no major "problems" with the TPP, why has this government continued to keep the details of the agreement from the people? If our elected representatives knew all of the details they, too, might be more supportive. But personally, I've had my fill of presidents with secrets. From claiming that telling us ANYTHING is a national security matter to keeping the details of the TPP from us leaves many of us feeling kinda queasy, like there's something evil lurking right behind that curtain over there! If we go along we're thinking that in a few months we're going to find out what that evil is, and we're not going to like it.
14
OK, so let me get this straight, a foreign corporation comes into my town and my city, the state and the federal government all sue this polluter for contaminating the groundwater and now this issue is not adjudicated in our courts but instead goes before a tribunal of lawyers appointed by the corporations and the main issue is whether or not this action to protect the groundwater interrupted this corporations right to profits, of which, my city, the state and the federal government are now liable for and this includes; if I do not want GMO's in my food or lead in my toys or would like to know where my food comes from, if it is infused with additives that will grow mammary glands, I mean come on, what part of this destroyer of the Bill of Rights and the constitution does not make you want to scream? Negotiated in secret because it is so bad the negotiators should be tried for treason and summarily executed and that goes for the congress and the President.
20
You can listen to Nobel laureate Columbia University economics professor Joseph Stiglitz explains why he is adamantly opposed to the TPP here: https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-april-30-2015-2-2/
13
A president builds his legacy by his record of leadership. Mr. Obama has not led, he has reacted. He has continuously shown his lack of rapport with governmental leaders, and demonstrated his contempt and distrust for his fellow citizens, preferring instead to accommodate financial and corporate special interests. If he manages to push the TPP through to completion in absolute secrecy (why, Mr. President?), he will not have created a legacy. Rather, he will have bought favors from the top .1% to feather his own nest.
27
This is a failure of politics not policy. The President once again chose obfuscation and unilateral petulant actions to well thought out inclusion, transparency, and clarity of vision. This approach was a problem with virtually every one of hi s"signature" initiatives - notably ACA. His political immaturity and lack of intuitive instinct puts him on collision course with his opponents and supporters every time. The TPP may well be a sensible policy deal, with some adjustments and caveats, but it has now become politically radioactive. And that will bring negative economic consequences.
15
Even Democrats are abandoning Obama. When Nancy Pelosi won't vote for your signature legislation, you have to know that you are in big trouble. Any trade deal that has to be negotiated in secret and without the transparency that Obama promised for his administration is bound to contain a whole lot provisions that will actually harm the American economy. And as usual, Obama will blame Republicans for his own failures. This lame duck president would do us all a big favor by resigning right now.
22
While the failure of the president to gain trade promotion authority will make the Trans Pacific Partnership more difficult to pass as is it, it does not make the trade DOA. This article makes it appear as they are one in the same - which is far form the truth. Failure of the President to receive trade promotion authority only assures that the trade deal will be vetted by congress. The white house could have avoided this PR fiasco by being forthright on the trade pact's content and allowing greater discussion throughout the process.
6
The lack of transparency with this proposed trade deal makes it incredibly difficult to separate truth from exaggeration--be it about the winners or losers--if this proposal were to pass. As a result, I really find it struggle to know what to think.
5
China is not part of the trade pact, so this is not much of a legacy for Obama if it passes.
This "trade partnership" sounds empty at the core and basically PR spin for Obama who is now entering his lame-duck phase.
2
Except for a few token alternate viewpoints (Baker's dismissive "some on the left") to give it a fair and balanced patina, this "news analysis" reads like it came straight from the White House propaganda shop.
President Obama is portrayed as an embattled martyr who only wants to do good in the world as he walks his noble, lonely walk from the Oval to the Situation Room. He doesn't wage wars or launch drones or protect Wall Street so much as he is consumed by them as forces beyond his control. His opponents are spoiling his legacy, poor guy.
Actually, they're not so much against Obama as they are FOR their constituents. They're against an obscene power-grab by multinationals and billionaires. So thank God for Obama's opponents -- activists, labor unions and all manner of people who just want our democracy back.
We're against this deal because it's been negotiated in secret by the same plutocrats it's meant to benefit. Thanks to Wikileaks, we've learned that investor state dispute tribunals would supplant national judiciaries, wreaking potential havoc over such basic human rights as clean food and water, life-saving drugs, and what few financial regulations are still reining them all in. It's a corporate coup on steroids. Otherwise, Obama would share the details.
Meanwhile, Baker couldn't guilt-trip opponents of the TPP any harder if he tried. He might as well be Obama's personal publicist.
How about some real journalism in the public interest for a change?
President Obama is portrayed as an embattled martyr who only wants to do good in the world as he walks his noble, lonely walk from the Oval to the Situation Room. He doesn't wage wars or launch drones or protect Wall Street so much as he is consumed by them as forces beyond his control. His opponents are spoiling his legacy, poor guy.
Actually, they're not so much against Obama as they are FOR their constituents. They're against an obscene power-grab by multinationals and billionaires. So thank God for Obama's opponents -- activists, labor unions and all manner of people who just want our democracy back.
We're against this deal because it's been negotiated in secret by the same plutocrats it's meant to benefit. Thanks to Wikileaks, we've learned that investor state dispute tribunals would supplant national judiciaries, wreaking potential havoc over such basic human rights as clean food and water, life-saving drugs, and what few financial regulations are still reining them all in. It's a corporate coup on steroids. Otherwise, Obama would share the details.
Meanwhile, Baker couldn't guilt-trip opponents of the TPP any harder if he tried. He might as well be Obama's personal publicist.
How about some real journalism in the public interest for a change?
110
I agree that Peter Baker's "News Analysis" is neither news nor analysis. It is a regurgitation of recent news reports and selected opinions of well known conservative points of view. Mr. Baker's inexplicable reliance on the obscure Michael J. Green, a former Asia adviser to President George W. Bush, is revealing not only of Mr. Baker's close personal ties to the G.W. Bush administration, but also of the intent of the article - irresponsible Democrats will cause international economic Armageddon by opposing this wonderful (secret) trade deal. Mr. Baker is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.
Could not agree more, Karen. Isn't it ironic that we need Trade Protection Assistance to help workers whose jobs go offshore as a result of TPP which, supposedly, is needed to help workers and create jobs. If the American public doesn't understand this, good for them. Neither do I.
Whether he understands this contradiction or not, Peter Baker apparently doesn't care to explain it. Instead, he insults us. And that says a lot about the decline in legitimate journalism in the 21st century especially at the "Paper of Record."
Whether he understands this contradiction or not, Peter Baker apparently doesn't care to explain it. Instead, he insults us. And that says a lot about the decline in legitimate journalism in the 21st century especially at the "Paper of Record."
If there was a case to be made for the TPP, President Obama did not make it. He retorted that Elizabeth Warren, who opposed the deal was a politician, but so is he! The heavy lifting is for selling the deal, not resisting it.
20
Legacy, smegasy. There is none. One badly written medical bill that will soon be emasculated is not a legacy. We have been living with media fantasies and no leadership for 24 years now. Enough, forget legacies that aren't and do something for the nation regardless of party. And the trade deal ain't it.
11
Are you actually trying to portray the first Bush as a leader? He was a large part of the system that held reagan's strings and made him dance as he did and he set up the mess that his son made of the entire world first by not capturing Saddam and then betraying the Marsh Arabs whom he encouraged to rebel then abandoned when Saddam stared fighting back. That is also the reason for the worst environmental disaster in the Gulf region in its history, Saddam damming the rivers that fed the marshes to dry them up.
In 2008, I worked for Barack Obama with high enthusiasm. I worked on the ground, traveled from state to state spending my own money. I wrote articles supporting him, and championing his victory. I was excited about him.
After seven years into his presidency, I am a deeply disappointed person. In fact, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been two politicians that I now consider my biggest letdowns of my life. They made me extremely disillusioned and sad.
Clinton's NAFTA destroyed U.S. workers, and destroyed Mexico. Obama's TPP is all but certain to destroy whatever is left of American labor, and to destroy the working class in the pacific rim countries. And it will destroy the environment big time.
But most importantly, Obama has shown us how to backtrack on the promises of change. With his new-era Democratic Party insiders, Obama has turned out to be truly the agent of status quo, exactly the same way Bill Clinton did it.
I hope people remember it all, when they vote again in 2016.
After seven years into his presidency, I am a deeply disappointed person. In fact, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have been two politicians that I now consider my biggest letdowns of my life. They made me extremely disillusioned and sad.
Clinton's NAFTA destroyed U.S. workers, and destroyed Mexico. Obama's TPP is all but certain to destroy whatever is left of American labor, and to destroy the working class in the pacific rim countries. And it will destroy the environment big time.
But most importantly, Obama has shown us how to backtrack on the promises of change. With his new-era Democratic Party insiders, Obama has turned out to be truly the agent of status quo, exactly the same way Bill Clinton did it.
I hope people remember it all, when they vote again in 2016.
25
Obabama has been pursuing TPP as a quid pro quo for post-2016 donations by big pharma and Hollywood to his Presidential Library and to Barack and Michelle Obama Foundation.
Just grift. Modeled on the Clinton-NAFTA experience.
There is absolutely no reason why any other Democrat should support TPP.
Just grift. Modeled on the Clinton-NAFTA experience.
There is absolutely no reason why any other Democrat should support TPP.
8
Actually, there are many reasons why all liberals should support it. most especially that it's a defacto climate change agreement. One of the staples is that it addresses carbon output and renewable energy that all American businesses who want to do business with the TPP nations will need to abide by. Which will spill over to all other commerce and trade deals.
The left is a total embarrassment with this deal. They're behaving as tea partiers.
The left is a total embarrassment with this deal. They're behaving as tea partiers.
1
Seems like a 100 years ago when candidate Obama campaigned on ending opacity in government.
Then he got to be a president.
Then he got to be a president.
24
Huntsman is exactly correct. If you have any doubts about China, look at what is going on Africa. Take a look at Angola. China is a major world force throughout China and the world. The U.S. needs to step up to the plate.
Now, is the bill to do it? Will it disenfranchise Americans? I don't know.
But the isolationism portrayed by statespeople quoted in the piece is strange.
Now, is the bill to do it? Will it disenfranchise Americans? I don't know.
But the isolationism portrayed by statespeople quoted in the piece is strange.
2
If the Democrats do not like what their leader has proposed, one can only believe that it is a bad deal for us. They know that Obama is pushing for yet another legacy, and they don't like this legacy. Vote "NO" on TPP.
9
Even as the President has acknowledged China might join the trade pact, we hear of the pact as a counterbalance to China. Baloney. If President Obama was truly concerned about his "legacy," he should have made it to the benefit of the American people. I'm concerned about my legacy, which I want to ensure my children and grandchildren have economic, environmental and health protections in a country whose form of government works for them.
14
This article is completely off the mark. You have nothing to write about, since neither you nor anyone else has seen the document. And here is the crux of the problem:
• Why have the powers-that-be (including President Obama) want to keep the agreement secret?
• How can anyone support an agreement that aren’t allowed to read?
• What in the agreement would be so troubling that its framers are keeping it away from the public?
One rumor contends that the rules established in this document would supercede the laws of individual countries. If true, this would signal the end of the traditional Nation State. Instead, the globe would be broken into transnational spheres of influence, transcending the legal frameworks of individual nations (e.g., the “nation” of Coke, of Google, of Chiquita).
Is this a paranoid delusion? Quite possibly. However, this is one risk that the framers of the agreement are taking by not releasing the information.
The New York Times has a responsibility to identify this problem as elemental to the passage of the treaty.
Art Silverblatt
St. Louis, Mo.
109
An international trade agreement that is still "classified" so we can't see it deserves to go down in flames.
This President is a failure because he thinks he's smarter than the 330 million people he is supposed to serve.
As a result, Obama has failed to deliver either hope or change.
This President is a failure because he thinks he's smarter than the 330 million people he is supposed to serve.
As a result, Obama has failed to deliver either hope or change.
12
The rights and welfare of the American Working Class should be the top priority, not a President's bid to assure his Legacy, however noble he may view his cause. President Obama most likely failed to convince his staunchest allies in Congress, because he tried to guilt trip them and insulted their integrity throughout the process. His rather personal skewering of Elizabeth Warren on the TPP issue back in March set the tone for a backlash. We thought we could pull out of Iraq after having trained the Iraqi Military, just like the so called political soothsayers promoting this deal believe that we can force Asian competitors to improve labor and environmental standards? "I'll get you my little pretty, and your little dog too." So much for crystal balls.
14
They aren't going to give this poor man one inch on anything. It's despicable. My God, he must be ready to be out of there. I can't imagine still being upright after this many years of daily brutalizing. There is something deeply wrong with the spirit of this nation.
He's an elected president, not a King. Thus, he is supposed to do what America wants, as reflected through our elected Representatives and Senators. The system worked.
Shouldn't you be more concerned why this "poor man" wants to sell tens of American middle class jobs down the river (to Asia) than whether his feelings are hurt because we didn't do what he wants?
Shouldn't you be more concerned why this "poor man" wants to sell tens of American middle class jobs down the river (to Asia) than whether his feelings are hurt because we didn't do what he wants?
8
Wedding parties in Pakistan have nothing on this most beleaguered of presidents.
But fear not. One day his nightmare will be over and it will be time to cash in! it is true he might not have his very own NAFTA but Wall Street won't forget his tender loving care.
But fear not. One day his nightmare will be over and it will be time to cash in! it is true he might not have his very own NAFTA but Wall Street won't forget his tender loving care.
7
Beltway insiders speak of "Asia pivot" as if it's (a) well defined, and (b) desirable. It sounds to me, however, like a orchestrated Beltway talking point to mobilize Americans for a new Cold War, this time with China. A Cold War that most Americans outside the Beltway and the military-industrial complex do not want.
9
Democrats were showing themselves to be the grown up party until the backlash on trade. What the hell? Asia is growing by leaps and bounds and we're supposed to just sit on our thumbs while China gains all the influence in the region? I don't understand the stupidity of going against our President on this issue.
2
The President should be more concerned about the Americans he supposed to represent than his legacy.. Glad this bill tanked.
11
Once again, an article about the trade deal in which Democrats are treated as being mindlessly anti-free trade (though at least in this one piece they aren't painted as being helplessly in the thrall of unions). Why is there not a single mention in this article of the Democrats' anger over being given a take-it-or-leave-it bill on which they are allowed no feedback, that has huge sections written by corporations, and cannot show to their advisors and experts for analysis and debate?
24
Its all about O, not the American people. Best O leave town early before he does more damage to our country.
9
The TTP failed because the benefits of free trade have been discredited. Free trade has enabled the outsourcing and off-shoring of manufacturing jobs and service jobs that do not require personal contacts. And yet a majority of Americans is ill-equipped in terms of skills and education to transition to a post-industrial US economy. This explains the stagnant of incomes and growing debts of most Americans.
Without major domestic initiatives such as infrastructure, corporate tax reform and worker retraining (without offset cutting of other domestic programs), the TPP is exposed as benefiting big businesses and major American corporations at the expense of American jobs and workers.
The TPP has been negotiated for over a decade and yet Obama administration is clueless and has wasted so much time ignoring the major domestic initiatives that could mollify the opposition and as usual has been inept and incompetent in predicting the strength of the opposition.
Without major domestic initiatives such as infrastructure, corporate tax reform and worker retraining (without offset cutting of other domestic programs), the TPP is exposed as benefiting big businesses and major American corporations at the expense of American jobs and workers.
The TPP has been negotiated for over a decade and yet Obama administration is clueless and has wasted so much time ignoring the major domestic initiatives that could mollify the opposition and as usual has been inept and incompetent in predicting the strength of the opposition.
10
The benefits of real free trade have not been discredited.
The benefits of this stuff marketed as free trade has been discredited. We have realized it all goes one way, against us.
The benefits of this stuff marketed as free trade has been discredited. We have realized it all goes one way, against us.
6
If that is what Obama calls a legacy defining moment then he is just another one of those Wall Street sellouts that has sold his soul to them. Democrats are smart to stall Obama on this one. Obama why are you turning your back on the voters that put you in their twice.
11
A president's legacy bought by yet another trade deal that screws American workers? Who cares about his legacy? What unbridled arrogance and egotism. Someone, including the press, have forgotten who works for whom and what the very point of that work is.
No president's legacy is worth the economic misery that this and prior trade deals have brought to millions upon millions of American working families. Good for every single member of congress who voted against this scam.
No president's legacy is worth the economic misery that this and prior trade deals have brought to millions upon millions of American working families. Good for every single member of congress who voted against this scam.
15
We must get used to countries not being nationalistic entities - but more so geographic/economic entities - its a brave new world and one where people must submit their own needs to the greater good of the economy...
This is the unfortunate message of the TPP.
This is the unfortunate message of the TPP.
6
Xi Jinping is overjoyed. Just when he gets the Nine Dash Line in place and militarized so he can control of our supply chains and employment levels, and therefore our policies, at no cost to him our attempt to create a countervailing power is crippled. Roosevelt is rolling in his grave.
3
The Nine Dash Line was put in place when Truman was President, by China before it was communist.
There are real issues, but making up "facts" does not help.
There are real issues, but making up "facts" does not help.
The country has swung left on this issue, and Obama, boy genius, great orator, law review at Harvard, can't see it in front of his face. He's just not that great a politician. He is incapable of putting himself in the shoes of a working class person. He thinks we should all just a get a job at Facebook or Google, play some ping pong on our breaks and be happy.
The image of him pushing this agenda is the exact opposite of what most Americans feel. The fact that he has mishandled this is his legacy and his flaw. He looks elitist and naive, but most of all, he looks Republican.
The image of him pushing this agenda is the exact opposite of what most Americans feel. The fact that he has mishandled this is his legacy and his flaw. He looks elitist and naive, but most of all, he looks Republican.
14
Obama continues to use insulting language towards members of his own party whose votes he needs. Just on Saturday, at a closed-door meeting, he practically told important members of Congress that they were idiots for opposing his bill.
What does he expect?
What does he expect?
15
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership and a President’s Legacy"
I wonder when the NYT or the Obama WH will be so embarrassed about reporting on the priority of Obama's Legacy, I word like mandate and so many others that I cannot find in my copy of the constitution,
Nad we will have reporting and WH propaganda central releases about the U.S. national interests, and americans, and the legacy of the american people.
Yeah, I know, never.
You Very Serious People don't have time for that outdated garbage when there is DC insider gossip of Master of the Universe to wallow in.
I wonder when the NYT or the Obama WH will be so embarrassed about reporting on the priority of Obama's Legacy, I word like mandate and so many others that I cannot find in my copy of the constitution,
Nad we will have reporting and WH propaganda central releases about the U.S. national interests, and americans, and the legacy of the american people.
Yeah, I know, never.
You Very Serious People don't have time for that outdated garbage when there is DC insider gossip of Master of the Universe to wallow in.
25
The first and last paragraph of every story should not be about Obama's attempt to "shape his legacy." The real story is about his efforts to "guide the nation."
41
Obama is doing all he can to guide us into second-tier nation status. The problem is that he is succeeding. Where is the Republican opposition? The Democrats are opposing the TPP. Where are the Republicans? If the Democrats know that their leader's TPP is bad, why should the Republicans back it? Republicans, please examine your motives.
4
I'd wager the mandarins who fret about the geopolitical consequences should the TPP fail don't have to worry about losing their jobs or seeing the quality of life in their communities decline as middle-class employment disappears.
101
The article lacks all description of the content of the proposed treaty. If the content is without substance, such that this is all symbolic, then why not publish the content? On the other hand if the content is the key, then discussing this as if were only symbolic, in terms of "demonstrating America's commitment," or "leaving a presidential legacy" quite misses the point.
122
We MUST be able to read the treaty. Democrats hold your ground. Do not allow this secret treaty to pass. Please protect US.
9
Reality check with billions in surplus trade in usa , we cant continue to supplement poor when there plenty jobs being exported . Big bussness refuses to spend in automation in usa . Anti union climate in usa an right for work laws only make more hostile to do work in usa . Mean while government continues reward companys toout source by buying those product knowing know that use to be made inusa with our taxs in billions an debt
10
As a Democrat, I agree with the president that TPP is important. As a Democrat, I oppose TPP because it will be bad for this country. It will undermine our democratic institutions and consumer protection.
67
Why would there be opposition abroad? Those countries stand ready to strip the last wealth of this one to the bone in this deal. My tax money will go to endless law suits with multinational corporations suing my government and trashing environmental and food safety laws during these endless lawsuits enmeshed in this court system I pay for and provide them with to play with—free for them, a never-ending expense for me.
When did it became normal in a democracy to vote on something one cannot see? When did that become normal? Lord save my representatives if they ever do such a thing. I'll work against them to the end.
When did it became normal in a democracy to vote on something one cannot see? When did that become normal? Lord save my representatives if they ever do such a thing. I'll work against them to the end.
163
We do that every election cycle. We pick a representative that we think will vote in our interests. Then they go off to secret committee meetings and vote however they want. Sure, you can say that you'll throw them out, but incumbents hardly ever get thrown out and they always have money to fuel the propaganda machine and reshape the story.
8
I am against TPP and TTAP (the Atlantic version of the trade deal) for the same reason - but including the reverse of your fears. It is the poor USA environmental laws that corporations will push on more progressive and protective countries. We have strict GMO labeling in Germany (and most of Europe) and already corporations like Monsanto are trying to slip wording into the TTAP to undermine that. Lobbyists in Brussels offer to put GMO info online, reachable through a bar code so you have to log on and scan each food item online to check on GMO content (Yeah, right! - They know exactly people in a hurry or slow internet connections, or older people without smart phones will not do that).
Intrigues like that show you cannot trust global corporations of ANY country.
Intrigues like that show you cannot trust global corporations of ANY country.
2
GMOs are the one thing the Greenies (I am one myself) have been totally wrong on. Nature has been doing her own GMOing forever. GMO crops have the potential to feed thousands of people in places with adverse growing conditions. If we keep altering the climate we are going to need these products ourselves. Nature alone can not keep up with the changes we are making. Think of it as enhanced evolution.
Don´t worry Barry. Your legacy is your lying, your inefficiency as a leader and your ability to foment racial strife. You will CERTAINLY be remembered!
16
His predecessor's awful legacy will overshadow his.
8
Why would we want a trade deal that removes more power from U.S. citizens and hands it to transnational corporations? When companies can sue governments and profits are far removed from consumers, Mr. Obama seems to be promising little more than 21st century trickle-down economics.
172
The very construct of this is offensive to American values. A locked room where a representative of "the People" is allowed to view the monolithic Trade Deal. No notes can be taken, no leaks to the population lest you be charged with Treason! The only information those who supposedly own their country have is delivered by Wikileaks which the government holds in enemy status. What country is this and who exactly does it belong to?
249
Yet the draft text was shared with hundreds of industry representatives at least three years ago, perhaps longer, who had the ability to weigh and submit corporate preferences long before members of Congress were able to see and comment. Wow. And people question why we need third party actors like Wikileaks and Edward Snowden? Going as far back as Adam Smith in the 18th Century, he spoke about the need for all players in the marketplace to have equal access to information to make a fair and equitable decision and to have a "free market". Joe Stiglitz won a Noble Prize for his work on information asymmetries and its effect on the market. Any wonder he is opposed to the TPP? As he said just a few weeks ago "Even people who are arbitrators say the whole system is corrupt, that it’s a very expensive system, that therefore creates an un-even playing field...".
3
The scene you describe is the same one in Citizen Kane where the reporter is alllowed into the archives of Kane's guardian. It's like a tomb, no notes, and a guard stands over you at all times.
Only difference is I'm sure the guardian's memoir is a helluva lot more interesting than Mr. Obama.
Only difference is I'm sure the guardian's memoir is a helluva lot more interesting than Mr. Obama.
3
If the trade deal is so important, then it should not be secret, it should not guarantee corporate profits, it should not allow more exporting of jobs and it shouldn't subvert our laws or allow any corporate entity to sue the nation.
It should benefit the middle class and create good paying jobs; not what corporations say is good pay, but what is recognized by Americans as good paying.
Then, eliminate H1B visas, reverse Citizens United, reinstall Glass-Steagall, tax investment income and wealthy households to pay for infrastructure.
It should benefit the middle class and create good paying jobs; not what corporations say is good pay, but what is recognized by Americans as good paying.
Then, eliminate H1B visas, reverse Citizens United, reinstall Glass-Steagall, tax investment income and wealthy households to pay for infrastructure.
268
I was pretty much with you until the last sentence. Some how your wish list left out; establish world peace, end hunger and cure cancer. All of these things are more easily done that getting politicians to act in the best interests of those they represent no just those that vote for them.
3
I hope you are very young, have a long, long life ahead of you, but you still won't see even one of those things happen.
2
I agree, transparency is absolutely necessary with the past record of trade deals. I have supported this president, but am disappointed. Legacy is not a reason for a bad deal. If the GOP is so for it, no way does it help the average American worker!
2
Peter Baker cites some cogent arguments in favor of the TPP. But Peter Baker isn't my president. While I am not a supporter of the TPP, I would gladly give President Obama my full attention if he were to address the nation and provide his own cogent arguments in favor of the deal.
But he hasn't. He's made vague statements about the TPP and -- despite his early pledges to have the most transparent administration in history -- he's kept the details closely under wraps. He has only decided to start communicating late in the game, and not with the public as a whole.
Many sympathetic writers in the press are doing a good job of doing Obama's job. The problem is that, until HE does it, no opinions on the left are going to change.
But he hasn't. He's made vague statements about the TPP and -- despite his early pledges to have the most transparent administration in history -- he's kept the details closely under wraps. He has only decided to start communicating late in the game, and not with the public as a whole.
Many sympathetic writers in the press are doing a good job of doing Obama's job. The problem is that, until HE does it, no opinions on the left are going to change.
100
I'm not sure people really understand the full scope and effect of a trade deal. It's hard enough to pin down how a few policy changes will affect things at home -- consider we've been arguing about tax policy since the founding of this country. I would venture that no one really has a serious clue about what the TPP would really mean for anyone -- corporations and individuals alike.
Hear! Hear! All he has to do it give us the facts. I want to believe in him, but I also wanted to believe Bill Clinton, and we all know where that got us.
4
"Peter Baker cites some cogent arguments in favor of the TPP."
We heard much the same 'arguments' at the time NAFTA was (similarly) aggressively pushed. So what we need now is empirical evidence of how THAT worked out, not more abstract 'arguments' and ideas! And virtually the evidence overwhelmingly documents that NAFTA cost us workers jobs! So why repeat the same mistake? Why can't we learn from experience?
Kind of like the legitimacy STILL being given to 'voodoo economics"!
In the 1980s, this was a theory (albeit an bogus, as many recognized). But 30 years of experience has shown all the negative consequences (windfalls for rich, extremes of wealth and poverty, lack of funds to repair crumbling nation, etc) and yet this "theory" is still being repeated and given credence, as if the last 30 years never happened!
We heard much the same 'arguments' at the time NAFTA was (similarly) aggressively pushed. So what we need now is empirical evidence of how THAT worked out, not more abstract 'arguments' and ideas! And virtually the evidence overwhelmingly documents that NAFTA cost us workers jobs! So why repeat the same mistake? Why can't we learn from experience?
Kind of like the legitimacy STILL being given to 'voodoo economics"!
In the 1980s, this was a theory (albeit an bogus, as many recognized). But 30 years of experience has shown all the negative consequences (windfalls for rich, extremes of wealth and poverty, lack of funds to repair crumbling nation, etc) and yet this "theory" is still being repeated and given credence, as if the last 30 years never happened!
5
I don't profess to possess the expertise to analyze the deal or its potential economic consequences but I do know that it feels like an inevitability we either attempt to influence by participating choose to be bystanders. This reeks of another instance in which Democrats lose out because they cannot get their stuff together.
4
Rosko, NO ONE has seen the deal. Members of Congress must go into a closed room, sign a paper saying that they will not discuss its provisions, and not take photos of the document. Anything done in secret like this (i.e., the Iran nuclear deal) is not worth passing. It can only spell a real problem for the United States.
8
Like you, I don't have the expertise either and I agree with you. To me it looks to me like the wealthy labor unions are the ones swaying the Democratic vote. No matter which party it is, the ones with the deepest pockets seem to control the vote of whoever they support. But what really stood out to me is the article saying Obama and Republicans agree on this. I think that is a first that Republicans and Obama are working toward something the Democratic members are against.
Had Obama not insisted that the crafting of the agreements be done in secrecy, total secrecy, then it might have had a chance. The way the world was kept in the dark was a ridiculous error in judgement. This wasn’t a plan to invade Russia it was a “free trade” agreement. The administration shot itself in the foot by thinking this deal could be created in total secrecy and shoved down Americas throat. No copies, no notes, no open discussion with the public? That’s not the way it works in a democracy Mr. President. Is this what you taught your students?
231
We're still in the dark, he has no plans to tell us anything about this. He's done in my book, I've supported him all along, this is a tragedy of major proportions. Just the fact that the republicans have backed him on anything should tell you something smells in Denmark.
6
Respectfully, this is Obama's MO, and there were plenty of his supporters who didn't mind at all when the ACA was crafted by BigHealth/BigPharma, and little was made known to the public before the vote. Had there been, we might very well have a single payer system today. We don't get to cherry pick when it's ok for presidents to keep legislation from the public's eyes unless we want exactly that result.
5
I don't disagree with you, but I suspect the secrecy has nothing to do with the American people and everything to do with China.
There is an idea that the United States will be able to "export" high value jobs if the trade deal is signed. It sounds to me like just another way to drive down wages. Sure there will be work in Singapore. And you'll be paid 15.00 an hour to do it. Try paying off your student loans on that one.
Seriously, I think Mr. Obama is trying to put something in place now that the horse has left the barn. That is, it's going to happen anyway. At least this way we have some control.
There is an idea that the United States will be able to "export" high value jobs if the trade deal is signed. It sounds to me like just another way to drive down wages. Sure there will be work in Singapore. And you'll be paid 15.00 an hour to do it. Try paying off your student loans on that one.
Seriously, I think Mr. Obama is trying to put something in place now that the horse has left the barn. That is, it's going to happen anyway. At least this way we have some control.
1
Based upon what has been leaked, it appears big corporations will win big on all fronts, gaining about $100 billion in revenues, outsourcing jobs at will, importing more foreign workers, and circumventing US courts and overturn federal, state and local government laws and regulations (e.g., environmental, labor, financial, etc.) that interfere with their profitability.
The losers will be middle class workers and US laws and regulations.
If President Obama wants to salvage TPP, he must negotiate out the ability of corporations engaged in trade to circumvent our laws and regulations. He must make it clear that child labor will not be allowed. And he must get the corporations who will gain so much from this law to fund - rather than raiding Medicare - the cost of the collateral damage they will create when outsourcing jobs to other countries and when replacing workers in the US with immigrants that they hire.