Pew Research, May 27: "Free Trade Agreements Seen as Good for U.S."

[ucrdem]

By a margin of 58 percent to 33 percent, Americans believe that free trade is good for the nation. Such sentiment is particularly strong among Hispanics (71 percent) and 18-to-29 year olds (69 percent). Support for the principle of free trade is broadly shared across gender, race, age, income, education, and party divisions. And it’s not a new phenomenon. Numerous Pew Research surveys over the years have found that most Americans think that global trade and economic engagement is good for the country.



Most Democrats favor free trade:

Notably, there are only modest partisan differences in views of the impact of free trade agreements on the country and people’s personal finances. About six-in-ten independents (62%) and Democrats (58%) say free trade agreements have been good for the U.S., as do 53% of Republicans. Nearly half of independents (47%), 42% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans say their family’s finances have been helped by free trade agreements.

More Positive Views of Financial Impact of Trade Deals Than in 2010, 2009:

The new survey finds that overall views about whether trade agreements are good for the U.S. are 10 percentage points higher than in 2011 (58% now, 48% then).

Moreover, the share of Americans who say their finances have been helped by free trade agreements has risen since 2010. At that time, negative impressions of the financial impact of trade deals outnumbered positive ones by 20 points (46% to 26%). Today, 43% take a positive view of the financial impact of free trade agreements, up 17 points since 2010, while 36% take a negative view (down 10 points).

more: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/27/free-trade-agreements-seen-as-good-for-u-s-but-concerns-persist/

[ucrdem]

1. Looks like Stop the TPP isn't such a winning issue among younger voters and Hispanics:

Younger adults and Hispanics continue to be particularly likely to view free trade agreements positively: Today, 69% of those under 30 say trade agreements have been good for the U.S., while just 24% say they have been bad for the country. By comparison, about half of Americans 50 and older (51%) evaluate trade agreements positively, while 39% say they have generally been bad for the country.

While slim majorities of whites (55%) and blacks (53%) say free trade agreements have been good for the country, Hispanic views are more positive (71% say they have been good for the U.S.).
.....................

Coulda told 'em that in January

[treestar]

44. Whoever sees this as the issue they think is going to

bring on a socialist America is delusional. The average voter just doesn't care. They are not scared of the TPP.

[djean111]

57. That's cool. But, then, why the organised pile-on when some of us express our concern about it?

We are told it doesn't exist as yet, then are told it will be swell! and then are told that yeah, it will hurt Americans but that is what we deserve.
I believe we have reached the point where all of the proselytizing about the TPP has zero effect on those of us who do not like it. And it is not like we can stop it, really. Is the threat of not supporting those Dems who vote yes on it that frightening? Is there some sort of job assignment that says everyone at DU must love the TPP? I am no longer foaming at the mouth about it, I will just very calmly never vote for any Dem who votes yes on it. Or any Dem who shilled for it and helped put it together. That is irreversible.

But to say that some of us should just happily accept it because a great number of Americans either don't know or don't care about it is ridiculous. I do not base my decisions on polls. Ever. Especially polls from people who don';t know or don't care. How ridiculous is that, really. We don't have GroupThink as yet.

[treestar]

60. It does seem a job assignment that you have to hate it

and declare it is going to ruin America, etc. That anyone who supports it is a corporatist lover of Wall Street, both of which seem to be decidedly required to be accepted as evil and out to get us all.

But I just don't think it's going to be the doom of America. This country seems to be pretty rich, strong and free for the most part. I just don't believe that even the Republicans would deliberately tear it down or that they could do so by means of a free trade agreement.

[djean111]

66. Well then, I guess we will see, won't we. In the meantime, no votes from me for those who vote

yes or support it or helped write it. Final answer, for me.

Just for starters, how can extending the length of time that generics cannot be produced be good for anyone but Big Pharma? And it looks like signatory countries will be barred from negotiating drug prices. Wow, what a swell way to do things.
This looks to be a big giveaway to global corporations. That will not turn out well, methinks. Guess we will see when Fast Track is passed. Until then, cheery generalities about That Which Cannot Be Seen fall pretty uselessly flat.

[Hoyt]

72. Would love to see where countries won't be able to negotiate drug prices.

I assume you have a concrete citation, ad opposed to some site pandering for readership by writing "TPP could, potentially, in our most exaggerated fear mongering result in . . . . . . .bad outcome."

The big problem with drugs internationally is some countries don't recognize any patents and condone drug counterfeiting. Mist poor countries pay a lot less than we do for patent drugs, and drug makers give a lot away.

With all that said, I think our laws should limit how long companies can essentially recover research cost in determining drug prices. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done.

[Joe Turner]

102. "With all that said, I think our laws should limit ....."

You don't get it, or maybe you do which would be worse. Our laws cease to have any meaning once this corporate trade policy aka TPP goes into effect. Conflicts like the one you described will be settled by international tribunals accountable to no one but the global corporate cartel that owns them. How any American can be in support of this blows the mind.

[Hoyt]

108. No you don't get it. Read about the international tribunals that use UN/WTO rules and

have been in place in some 2500 trade agreements since 1959. I bet you don't even know how the tribunal judges are selected.

Even the EU -- and Bernie Sanders' favorite Scandinavian countries -- have used these tribunals.

Most telling is that countries are still clamoring to sign agreements with the dispute mechanism in them. I guess you are one of those that think every country in the world who signs these agreements have been bought off by so-called "global corporate cartels."

[Joe Turner]

120. Are you going on record that the TPP will not supersede

U.S. laws and regulations in areas like food, drugs, patents? Is that your spin? That's a big chunk of that agreement pal. All the spinning in the world will not change it. It was and is why this agreement has been kept under secrecy. BTW, the Scandinavian countries run trade surpluses, especially with the U.S. You know why? It's because they, unlike America, don't let their corporations run them around by their nose.

[Hoyt]

121. Yes. Of course, many of the so-called progressives here call it superseding when a country

actually discriminates against a foreign company by applying different rules to the foreign companies than they apply to domestic companies. That is clearly a violation of international law and should go to a tribunal for adjudication. We've come out pretty good in tribunal hearings.

However you cut it, Scandinavian countries gladly sign these agreements, Pal. Apparently the "progressive" governments there have more sense than many here.

[Joe Turner]

140. Complete obfuscation of the point

The issue is TPP giving the power to corporations foreign or domestic to supersede U.S. rules, regulations, laws if they can show harm to whatever they are trying to play victim on which is usually....profits. This ceding of U.S. sovereignty is on an unprecedented scale.

Here's some reading for ya. The below comes straight from our own CIA which keeps track of global account current balances, i.e. trade surpluses and trade deficits. The list starts with with nation the has the highest trade surplus which btw is Germany. Care to guess which country is at the bottom of ALL nations for more than 25 years now. The one that bled $385 billion last year in trade deficits. Take a wild guess. This is the direct result of our corporate free trade adventures. Spin away on that.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

[Hoyt]

143. They have to show they've been discriminated against in favor of domestic corporations.

[Joe Turner]

146. B/S they can show cause by the U.S. having a regulation that has a higher standard

than a international standard. If you call that favoring domestic corporations you are being purposely obtuse. Keep on spinning.

[Hoyt]

147. Do you have the language to prove that, or is "BS" your proof.

[Joe Turner]

153. I don't know. How about the actual language of TPP

which greatly expands a corporation's ability to sue government for laws and regulations that they feel are too stringent compared to other international standards. The below is just one of many reports on TPP. Let's see the language of TPP that demonstrates this and thousands of other studies to be inaccurate. You should have no trouble with producing this evidence, no? After all, it is your side that wants to hang this monstrosity on America. Let's see it. Been waiting for this for a long time.


http://www.demos.org/blog/tpp-will-supersede-domestic-law-favor-corporations

[Hoyt]

145. So, now you've gone to talking trade deficits. Did you know plenty of economists

don't see trade deficits as that big a deal.

"Economists who consider trade deficits good associate them with positive economic developments, specifically, higher levels of income, consumer confidence, and investment. They argue that trade deficits enable the United States to import capital to finance investment in productive capacity. Far from hurting employment, they believe that trade deficits financed by foreign investment in the United States help to boost U.S. employment.

Some economists see trade deficits as mere expressions of consumer preferences and as immaterial. These economists typically equate economic well being with rising consumption. If consumers want imported food, clothing, and cars, why shouldn't they buy them? That range of choices is part of a successful economy."

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/trade-deficits-bad-good.html

[Joe Turner]

148. The same economics that have told us what a great deal free trade is?

Sure real credible source there. No, I prefer my own eyes on seeing the collapse of our manufacturing base and with it our inner cities, standard of living, and the ever-squeeze on the middle class associated with our trade polices. Why would any rational person take their word any anything given their track record? They [economists] almost to the number said America would show strong trade surpluses with NAFTA and every trade deal since then. But as the CIA trade handbook shows it's all massive deficits. Is it any wonder most economists want to downplay the deleterious effects of trade deficits.

If you have not seen enough economic strife in the last few decades don't worry. It will be even more evident when the wall street casino comes tumbling down and with it all that paper wealth.

[Hoyt]

152. The manufacturing base has been sliding since first transistor radios, Chinese Finger Traps, and VWs

proved to Americans there were better and cheaper products available globally. Apparently, you failed to see the trend.

[Joe Turner]

155. Yes, it is amazing what happens when a country

drops tariffs and the other side puts a bullseye on a country's industry. You think it is no big deal that we have lost scores of industries and high paying jobs to mercantile trading relationships? This is exactly what has put tens of millions of Americans out of a job and into chronic financial difficulties. Nations that produce little but consume a lot don't last long. The last one that did this lost their vast empire and is the weak man of Europe. We're next as China surpasses us.

[Hoyt]

162. You obviously fear foreigners. Better to embrace them and adapt.

[Joe Turner]

165. Oh so that's it. Learning to adapt to lower standards

because the corporate owned government wants ever greater profits earns one the distinction of being afraid of foreigners. No I'm actually a lot more afraid of the folks run our government. No country could do to us what our own leaders have.

[Hoyt]

193. Yep all the countries party to trade agreements are corporate bought, and you and a few self-styled

progressives are going to keep us from becoming Obama and Merkel's slaves.

[Joe Turner]

195. You seem to have no memory of the past

Can I assume you don't believe corporations have controlling power within our government? Actually now that you brought it up, Europe has done a much better job of controlling their corporations than we have. And it shows in the trade statistics and rising standard of living. I don't expect a corporate flack like yourself to understand anything other then presenting one red herring after another.

[Hoyt]

197. Yet, they are party to these agreements because they want more trade and investment in their

countries. I guess you've never worked for a corporation, along with a 100+ million other Americans.

I do agree Europe has done a better job of regulating and taxing corporations, and workers for that matter. And workers get more for it. We should too.

[Joe Turner]

199. They are party to these agreements like China and Japan

are parties to our trade agreements but these agreements only give incentive to U.S. companies to offshore and place their investments there. Actually I am all in favor of better trade agreements with Europe as we have more in common with them than Asia. And you happen to be wrong again. I've spent a lifetime working for U.S. companies and in manufacturing...what's left of it. My experience has been no matter what the trade agreement, the other nations make sure they get the better deal when it comes to Uncle Sam.

[Hoyt]

200. They get better deals because they make better products.

[Joe Turner]

202. America had the best products for decades

until our trade policies made it impossible to keep manufacturing here. Once that happened the investment incentives in manufacturing were greatly diminished. Try competing with a nation that has no labor or safety standards, environmental laws, business regulation and workers make a fraction of U.S. wages. Nice to know where you stand though on American quality.

[Hoyt]

203. Did you ever drive our 60/70s gas guzzlers. Heavy, crummy cars, unless you need a high

HP engine to compensate for self esteem deficiencies.

They cost too much for what you got. That's why foreign cars took over, and convinced folks that foreign products were not cheap pieces of junk.

[Joe Turner]

205. and that period in autos defines American quality?

America was the leader in manufactured goods across a whole range of industries. Care to guess what America's market share is in Japan today with much better cars. It almost does not exist but here they have almost half the market. You find that interesting? How can that be in this global world of ours? Opps, looks like someone is protecting their market. Speaking of quality you must be thrilled with those fine products from China.

[Hoyt]

211. And, nobody wants our cars because they cost too much for what you get. Sorry, that's the truth.

Our trucks are reasonably competitive though.

[Joe Turner]

218. Really? I thought these free trade deals were going to open up markets for us

Wasn't that the oft repeated claim of every single corporate trade agreement? Yet more trade promises that bombed out once the one way trade agreements were signed. You are naive if you think Japan or any Asian nation would allow mass exports from American...no matter how good the quality. They are interested in building their industrial base and we let our corporations run wild. We lose this race.

[Hoyt]

220. You do realize if a country opens an auto plan here, it brings good jobs. But,

this is far more than auto jobs. Too bad you are stuck on one industry.

[Joe Turner]

227. I realize that this country has been blown out of 1 industry after another

Has lost tens of millions of high paying manufacturing and tech jobs across many industries, not just one and this country is has the distinction of being year after year the nation with the highest trade deficits. That's after foriegn investment in assemby shops here. Your argument goes against the actual results of corporate trade deals. They were suppossed to create prosperity. It did the exact opposite. BTW, my industry is doing quite well thanks...you seem to broad assumptions about things you have no clue about.

[Hoyt]

228. And TPP is trying to salvage what we can. Manufacturing jobs have been disappearing for 40 years

or more.

Other industries can do quite well too, others are a losing cause. I know some here hate the "buggy whip manufacturing" analogy, but much of what we've lost is in that realm. Other job loses are due to technology, necessary to compete with lower foreign wages.

Creating foreign markets won't hurt us the way some people seem to think, it may help.

[Joe Turner]

229. Your logic is circular

Bad trade policy has been at the heart of our industrial and middle class decline. It's ridiculous to assume that TPP with biggest corporate welfare deal of all will do anything but further sink this country in red ink. Oh yes, the buggy whip analog. Let me ask you this: If a coutnry lost its manufacturing and technological infrasture just what foundation is there to create new innovatiave products. Once we exited TVs we lost all the future sales of HD TVs. There are countless of examples and this is a big reason why so many Americans are struggling.

[Joe Turner]

62. It's amazing what money can buy

Let's see Pew Research another rusting Beltway think tank embedded into the Washington DC power structure is supposed to have credibility on their polls regarding corporate trade deals. Have they ever not in been in favor of free corporate trade deals? Let me submit to you the adage: There are lies, damn lies and then there are beltway think tanks. Think tanks that have played an integral role selling corporate written trade policies that have led to the destruction of America's once proud manufacturing sector. It does not take too much imagination to wonder how those questions on trade were designed to get the results they want. And obviously you, like a few others here, have some economic interest in TPP.

[ucrdem]

67. Pew isn't a think tank per se, it's a polling company.

Yes they publish articles but basically they take the pulse of the nation on particular issues. Some of us dismiss polls, some live and die by them, but personally I think it's important to know what people are actually thinking if we want to call ourselves a democracy.

[Joe Turner]

81. Nice to know Pew is doing God's work for democracy

What a joke. Pew is about propaganda and control by the people that fund them. They are not interested in any real democracy. Only a fraudulent one they can sell to the gullible.

[ananda]

64. And they will be so hurt by it.

..

[ucrdem]

2. Liberal Democrats more likely than conservative Republicans to favor free trade:

BRUCE STOKES, Foreign Policy, MAY 29, 2015:

"politicians are out of sync with a turn in public sentiment."

But, contrary to the alignment of political forces in Washington, among the general public liberal Democrats are somewhat more likely than conservative Republicans to think that free trade is good for the country. And, in a new development, more Americans now believe that free trade agreements have helped rather than hurt their family finances.

This is particularly true among young people and Hispanics, a potent new constituency for trade which also happens to be disproportionately Democratic-leaning.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/29/when-did-democrats-become-americas-free-trade-believers/

[Tarheel_Dem]

196. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Art_from_Ark]

215. And yet, liberal Democrats in Congress who have actually read the damn thing

are against it, while conservative Republicans are generally for it.

[eridani]

3. Is this hosrseshit supposed to be about TPP?

Here's a clue for you. TPP is not about trade. It is about giving investors the right to sue governments for laws that diminish their profits, which has jackshit to do with trade.

[ucrdem]

5. Yep.

And if you're really worried about ISDS, which is basically a compliance mechanism, go here:

ISDS up close and personal: Philip Morris, FUD vs TPP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026723402

[eridani]

6. Yep. Compliance with antidemocratic thuggery. It's a good thing! n/t

[eridani]

7. Executing old people is great too. Medicare doesn't really need that $700 million n/t

[ucrdem]

10. Thank the Democratic Senators who grandstanded for that one.

It wasn't Barack Obama's idea.

[eridani]

14. I'm thanking them by refusing to donate to any of them from now on n/t

[ucrdem]

17. Then don't complain when they solicit PAC donations.

Campaigns aren't cheap.

[ucrdem]

8. Seriously, are bank accounts antidemocratic thuggery?

Mortgages? Credit cards? Car loans? How many rights have you "signed away" in the course of getting your utilities hooked up for instance? Or to get a job? Getting worked up over arbitration agreements is pretty lame.

[eridani]

11. Whoring for corporate overthrow of public decisions is antidemocratic thuggery n/t

[ucrdem]

13. Evidenty the public HAS decided. They decided free trade is good for the US.

Particularly Hispanics (71%), younger voters (69%), and liberal Democrats (59%), who view free trade agreements positively:

[ucrdem]

15. oops .. wrong place

[Trajan]

106. And Germans voted the Nazis into power

Your point?

[ucrdem]

111. Godwin's law. nt

[beam me up scottie]

117. Your op is a tribute to Hanlon's Razor. nt

[AgingAmerican]

235. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[ucrdem]

4. I expect this will come was welcome news to the HRC campaign

and to the Obama administration. Who knew the public mood had shifted so much in just four years? Or that Obama was right about TPP opponents fighting the last war?

[RobertEarl]

9. That's pretty sad

The idiots don't know anything more than what they are told to know.

Indeed, with numbers like these, democracy is dead. What's odd is all the cheering for the demise.

[ucrdem]

12. And when you drive your new electric car off the lot in a couple of years

keep telling yourself democracy is dead.

[betterdemsonly]

38. I doubt the average American will be able to afford a new car in a few years

They can't afford one now.

[arcane1]

47. My region already has electric cars all over the place, without the TPP

I won't be buying one either way since I don't drive.

[TheKentuckian]

238. What does democracy being alive have to do with electric cars?

And why do you anticipate there will be one in every driveway in two years?

[ucrdem]

239. Part hope, part hunch...

But based on my recollection of the last Clinton presidency I'd say the chances are good that if the election goes well in Nov. 16 we're in for some high times:

[TheKentuckian]

240. What does that have to do with a functioning democracy?

You can have electric cars under about any form of government.

I thought it was misogyny to compare much less conflate Bill with Hillary. Why aren't you being shouted down by adorers probably because they are hypocrites that can't differentiate the 2 for 1 team's policy positions either but like to use "isms" as a handy cudgel.

[ucrdem]

16. College Grads, Young People More Likely to View Free Trade Agreements As Helping Personal Finances

from: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/27/free-trade-agreements-seen-as-good-for-u-s-but-concerns-persist/5-27-2015_05/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. The farther in time we get from the last free trade agreement, the more people forget the harm done

by them, and romanticize the past.

[ucrdem]

18. Free-traders: liberal Dems, Hispanics, young voters. Protectionists: cons, Republicans, older voters

As the House fast-track debate evolves, one interesting question will be the extent to which it reflects the same old inside-the-Beltway battle of protectionists vs. free traders. Or whether it begins to mirror the more nuanced sentiment now evident in public opinion: where liberal Democrats, and their supporters among Hispanics and the young, are more supportive of trade than conservative Republicans and their supporters among older voters.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/29/when-did-democrats-become-americas-free-trade-believers/

[djean111]

19. Only 5 chapters of the TPP are about trade. The rest is corporate giveaway.

So the poll is bullshit cherry-picked hogwash.

Might as well ask "Do you believe in feeding babies?".

[ucrdem]

21. The poll is the most recent data we've got.

I'm sorry if it doesn't match your preconceptions, but that's why polls are taken.

[ucrdem]

24. Here are the chapter subjects grouped by topic:

1. Trade in Goods

2. Textiles

3. Services

4. Investment

5. Labor

6. Environment

7. E-Commerce and Telecommunications

8. Competition Policy and State-Owned Enterprises

9. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

10. Intellectual Property Rights

11. Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

12. Transparency, Anticorruption and Regulatory Coherence

13. Customs, Trade Facilitation, and Rules of Origin

14. Government Procurement

15. Development and Trade Capacity-Building

16. Dispute Settlement

17. U.S.-Japan Bilateral Negotiations on Motor Vehicle Trade and Non-Tariff Measures

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-issue-issue-negotiating-objectives

[ucrdem]

20. TPP at-a-glance

Here are some TPP threads I've posted that explain what the TPP is and what it's supposed to accomplish:

What it is: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a 12-country trade agreement that will replace NAFTA (US, Canada and Mexico) with a new treaty that also includes Japan, Australia, Peru, Vietnam and 5 other countries, China excluded, although China has recently expressed interest in joining:

"China may join the TPP... but it'll take a while," Marketplace, Thursday, June 4, 2015
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/president-obama-talks-trade/china-may-join-tppbut-itll-take-while

What it's supposed to accomplish: The long and short is that it's part of President Obama's plan to grow the economy, to borrow Bill Clinton's phrase, by creating export markets for US goods and new US jobs producing them. Additionally the TPP provides a rather detailed regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property, services and investments, labor rights, and the environment.

And now the threads:

1. Sun Jun 7, 2015: Pew Research, May 27: "Free Trade Agreements Seen as Good for U.S."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026793057

2. Wed May 27, 2015: NPR on TPP: "It's A Beast"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026733529

3. Sun May 24, 2015: ISDS up close and personal: Philip Morris, FUD vs TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026723402

4. Sun May 24, 2015: Can we agree that jobs are not the problem with TPP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026720037

5. Sat May 23, 2015: WaPo: "Why Obama’s key trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026716674

6. Fri May 22, 2015: John Kerry on TPP: "95 percent of the world’s consumers live beyond the borders of the US" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026714251

7. Wed May 20, 2015: NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026700031

8. Tue May 19, 2015: Supporting TPP is written into the latest (2012) Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026694048

9. Sat May 16, 2015: Guess which "national spokesman on the issue of sovereignty" opposed TPA?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026679777

10. Wed May 13, 2015: It's not a declaration of war, it's not an embargo, it's not a no-fly zone,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026670009

11. Sat May 9, 2015: If Sanders and Warren were telling the truth, they'd argue FOR, not against, the TPA. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026649703

12: Fri Jan 30, 2015: The point of TPP is to boost US exports. That's why PBO is behind it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159076

13: Fri Jan 2, 2015: "USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Outline"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6034217

14: Fri Jan 2, 2015: A US State Dep't site search returns 790 texts and transcripts using "Trans-Pacific Partnership," http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026034112

[ucrdem]

245. p.s. heres the latest direct link to the TPP text as of today, April 9, 2016:

https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership

Table of contents (better link): https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/table-of-contents-83d9de8d01b5#.a9nt8g2p7

[pampango]

22. The Democratic Party has been the low-tariff, high-trade party since the Civil War ended. FDR and

Truman epitomized this with the International Trade Organization and GATT. The former was rejected by a republican congress. The latter approved by Truman by executive order so that the same congress could not reject it, too. Tariffs were lowered by every Democratic president after Truman.

The republican party was the high-tariff, low-trade party until 1980 when its establishment adopted the long-standing Democratic trade policy.

As you can tell from the poll results you posted (and many others), the republican establishment may have flip-flopped on trade but their base never did. Of course, their base not only dislikes trade agreements and the WTO, they detest the UN, the IMF, the World Bank plus practically every international agreement and organization since they all diminish 'national sovereignty' and push the concept of global cooperation and 'We are all in this together". Conservatives much prefer "US, exceptional Americans" vs "THEM, sneaky foreigners" to "We are all in this together".

[ucrdem]

23. Thanks Pampango!

Yes per the May 27 Pew poll it appears that anti-TPP sentiment in the U.S. skews older, more conservative, Republican, and non-Hispanic, the last overwhelmingly.

Gee who would have predicted that?

[AZ Progressive]

25. Trying to continue peddling TPP propaganda, its not about trade, its about SELLING OUT AMERICA

The TPP WILL ALLOW MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS TO TELL AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS WHAT TO DO, AND STRIKE DOWN LAWS THAT FAVOR THE PEOPLE. ITS VIOLATING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND ALLOWING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE PAWNS OF CORPORATIONS. IT TURNS PROFIT INTO A RIGHT.

God damnit, I wonder how much these people get paid to mindlessly post propaganda.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. The propaganda works? shocking. nt

[ucrdem]

29. Yes, in Vermont.

[AZ Progressive]

28. Why do you hate America?

Obviously if you are just fine with handing over American sovereignty to big multinational corporations, you must hate America.

[ucrdem]

31. Because I'm not an older conservative Republican perhaps?

That's how anti-TPP sentiment skews, and it's a shrinking minority, per these latest Pew Research figures.

[AZ Progressive]

33. So you don't believe what is being leaked out at all? So your calling everyone else liars?

BTW, I am a bit jealous of being able to make money posting things on the internet...

[ucrdem]

35. There are lots of FUD-peddlers, yes, and I've been calling them out for as long as I've been here.

Check my journal.
........
Note to jury: FUD = "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt" and describes a classic GOP swiftboating technique.

[arcane1]

45. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are FUD-peddlers now?

[ucrdem]

51. Per the Pew poll their views on free trade are shared by a shrinking conservative minority. nt

[beam me up scottie]

83. And Warren and Sanders are now conservatives according to you?

You don't play around when it comes to misrepresenting people, do you?

[ucrdem]

154. PoliticusUSA, June 7: "Poll Finds 80% Of Republicans Agree With Bernie Sanders

On Citizens United"

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/02/poll-finds-80-republicans-agree-bernie-sanders-citizens-united.html

Guess you walked right into that one

[beam me up scottie]

156. You DISAGREE with him about Citizen's United???

Wow.

Why does that not surprise me?

From the article:

Sen. Bernie Sanders is often characterized by the media as an out of the mainstream presidential candidate, but a new CBS/New York Times poll revealed that 80% of Republicans agree with Sanders on the issue of getting money out of politics.

The CBS/NYT poll found that:

– 80% of Republicans believe that money has too much influence in our politics.

– 54% believed that most of the time candidates directly help those who gave money to them.

– 81% of Republicans felt that the campaign finance system needed fundamental changes (45%) or a complete rebuild (36%).

– 64% are pessimistic that changes will be made to reform the campaign finance system.

– 71% want to limit the amount that individuals can give to campaigns.

– 73% felt that super PAC spending should be limited by law.

– 76% thought that superPACs should be required to disclose their donors.

...

All of these positions are held by Bernie Sanders, and the opinion of the majority on each question is the exact opposite of the reasoning used by the majority of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision.Overall, 84% of Americans agree with Bernie Sanders that money has too much influence in U.S. politics. Seventy-five percent favor donor disclosure and 77% favor limiting contributions.

Hillary Clinton and President Obama also favor getting the money out of politics, but both of them have been forced to raise huge sums of money in order to be competitive.

Bernie Sanders isn’t as far out of the mainstream as the media likes to believe, and it is also clear that mainstream America wants their country back from the billionaires who are attempting to take it over.

You didn't even bother to read it, did you?

[ucrdem]

157. I read it and CU isn't the only shared view. nt

[beam me up scottie]

158. So disagreeing with Sanders re Citzens United and big money in politics is a bad thing.

Good to know where your candidate stands on that issue.

And another reason to vote for Bernie.

[ucrdem]

159. Didn't say that. nt

[beam me up scottie]

160. You said: "Poll Finds 80% Of Republicans Agree With Bernie Sanders On Citizens United"

"and CU isn't the only shared view" like that was a bad thing when I questioned why you called Sanders and Warren "conservatives".

What did you mean?

Which one of the positions listed above makes them conservative?

[ucrdem]

161. I posted the article title and noted the content. The rest is on you. nt

[beam me up scottie]

163. Nope. You made the claim so it's up to you to back it up.

Which positions in the article you linked to are conservative?

[ucrdem]

164. Actually you made the claim. Not me.

Here we go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6795948

Any time.

[beam me up scottie]

167. You claimed anti-TPP sentiment was "skewed" towards "older conservative Republicans"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6795607

Then you said "Per the Pew poll their views on free trade are shared by a shrinking conservative minority."

I asked you to clarify: "Warren and Sanders are now conservatives according to you?"

And you followed with a quote and link about Republicans agreeing with Bernie over Citizens United and the comment

"Guess you walked right into that one"

as if you had proved something.




What did I walk right into?

Which part of the article you linked to proves your point?

[ucrdem]

169. Sorry, you can keep on rolling but you're on your own. nt

[beam me up scottie]

172. I've been on my own since I asked why you ignored crucial data in the op.

That's usually what happens when anyone asks you to explain why we're wrong about the TPP.

I just thought maybe you'd upped your game.

My bad.

[Rex]

225. He was so desperate for me to play along. However I decided not to feed him much.

I think some ribs are showing lol. Nice to see someone run him off with an avalanche of facts and very good persuasive writing. That doesn't happen very often.

[beam me up scottie]

236. I saw that.

I try to ignore the propaganda but sometimes it's just too galling.

[ucrdem]

237. Perfect, you two can be each other's imaginary friends.

I love happy endings.

[AZ Progressive]

74. Experience has taught me not to jump on something without knowing all the facts

Expecially when going along with something puts you in a potentially vulnerable situation where you would have to trust the person your dealing with.

So being optimistic like that is just plain foolish IMO.

[Joe Turner]

198. Huh? TPP is Republican trade legislation

Born from the republican party, nurtured in the republican party and has the support of over 90% of the republican congress. I don't know about older, but your trade policies fit in perfectly with the republican party. That's why for TPP to pass they have to peel off just enough democrats to win because the republican party is all in. The real shrinking minority is anyone that believes letting our corporations write our trade policies will lead us to prosperity.

[ucrdem]

201. You seem to know very little about the TPP. Please educate yourself. Here are the links again:

Everything you ever wanted to know about the TPP and more: TPP At-a-Glance

[Kalidurga]

30. People overwhelmingly support voter ID laws as well.

[ucrdem]

32. Do you have a link to a reputable recent national poll showing that?

TIA.

[Kalidurga]

34. Well that was from talking to people but if you want a blue link.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/206300-poll-70-percent-support-voter-id-laws

[ucrdem]

36. ". . . according to a Fox News poll released this week."

p.s. "this week" = May 2014

[Kalidurga]

39. here is another we could probably do this all day.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/voter-identification-laws-poll/2014/03/25/id/561643/

[ucrdem]

43. Newsmax?

Really?

[Kalidurga]

52. let me know when I get to one that you like

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/14/13266161-poll-most-favor-voter-id-laws-but-public-awareness-of-their-effect-is-low

[ucrdem]

54. Aug 14, 2012

And:

However, 51 percent of the randomly selected 2,047 adults surveyed nationally between July 18 and 29 said they had either heard not much or nothing at all about voter ID laws.

Better leave this one to FOX as it's their bread and butter.

[treestar]

37. that's interesting

Would not have expected that. Especially among Democrats.

[Kalidurga]

40. Not all Democrats understand all the issues.

I would say less than 5% actually understand what TPP is and what it would do.

[Tarheel_Dem]

207. They don't understand it? Or they don't agree with you? Which is it?

[ucrdem]

210. Both--they can't understand it if they don't agree.

Good times!

[Tarheel_Dem]

212. !!!

[ucrdem]

234. I'm smelling flop sweat from team Jules . . .

so sad

[ucrdem]

42. Especially among Hispanic, liberal, and younger Democrats at that.

Who but Barack Obama could have finally banished Ross Perot's ghost?

[arcane1]

41. Well, that proves that the marketing for it has been effective.

I wonder how many of those polled could "show their work" and demonstrate how "free" trade has helped them.

[ucrdem]

49. How many opponents can show that it hasn't?

Here's the effect NAFTA actually had on US employment for example. Note that the governing administration has a far greater effect on the economy than any trade deal ever could:

[sadoldgirl]

46. So? This just proves to me

that you can fool most of the people most of the time,
especially if you are using a great propaganda machine.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. $ per word?

[ucrdem]

50. Know whut I mean?

[Marr]

73. It takes a special kind of idiot to promote free trade for minimum wage.

lol.

[cherokeeprogressive]

137. I know, right? n/t

[betterdemsonly]

53. The sleight of hand here is to test for free trade in general rather than the tpp specifically

having said that Pew has definately become an neoliberal defense network.

[beam me up scottie]

79. See my post #56 below, the op was very choosy about the data.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6795732

[HooptieWagon]

55. Did they only poll Internet corporate shills?

It's a silly meaningless poll. Of course people support a generic free trade policy, just as they'd support Peace In The Middle East in a poll.The Devil is in the details, however.

[ucrdem]

58. Yes, polls that challenge your preconceptions must be silly and meaningless. nt

[HooptieWagon]

135. But of course polls can be worded to achieve a desired result.

Always to propagandize an otherwise unpopular tenet.

[beam me up scottie]

56. You're using selective excerpts to promote your cause and ignoring others:

On the other hand, there has been no improvement since 2010 in opinions about the effect of free trade agreements on wages. Currently, 46% say free trade deals make the wages of American workers lower, while just 11% say they lead to higher wages (33% say they do not make a difference). The share saying that trade agreements drive down wages is largely unchanged since 2010, when 45% said they made wages lower.

In addition, trade agreements continue to be seen as doing more to cost jobs than create them. In the new survey, 46% say free trade agreements lead to job losses in the United States; just 17% say they create jobs in this country. That is only somewhat more positive than five years ago, when 55% said trade deals cost jobs and 8% said they create jobs.

Nearly half (46%) of Americans say trade agreements lead to job losses, more than twice the number (17%) who say they create jobs (28% say they do not make a difference). Similarly, 46% say free trade agreements make the wages of American workers lower, while just 11% say they make wages higher (33% say they do not make a difference). On both of these questions there are no significant differences in the views of Republicans, Democrats and independents.

Currently, 52% of those who rate their financial situations as good or excellent say their finances have been helped by free trade agreements, up from 37% six years ago.

By comparison, there has been a smaller increase in positive views of the impact of free trade agreements among those who rate their own finances as only fair (41% today vs. 34% in November 2009).

Those who rate their finances as poor continue to say free trade agreements have had a negative effect on their financial conditions. About twice as many people who say their finances are in poor shape say they have been hurt than helped by free trade agreements (55% vs. 27%). That is little changed from the way people who saw their financial situations as poor viewed free trade agreements six years ago; at that time, 50% said their finances were hurt by free trade and just 24% said they were helped.

According to that info the TPP is just fucking awesome if you don't care about the opinions of poor people.

Propaganda only works if people don't look at it too closely.

[ucrdem]

59. It's a national poll about international trade treaties.

Yes there is as yet uncertainty about the particular effects of the TPP but the newly emerging consensus is that free trade will benefit the nation's interests and that's what the executive branch must concern itself with:

"Today, 43% take a positive view of the financial impact of free trade agreements"

[beam me up scottie]

61. Since when is "a national sample of 2,002 adults" a concensus of Americans?

About the Survey

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted May 12-18, 2015 among a national sample of 2,002 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (700 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 1,302 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 750 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.

You want people to believe that those who oppose the TPP are a tiny minority and because we're the "fringe" our opinion should be dismissed.

[ucrdem]

63. If you have better, more accurate, or more recent data by all means post it. nt

[beam me up scottie]

65. Unlike you, I wouldn't use such sketchy data to promote my pet cause.

But you're killin it here, ucrdem.

Just look at all the people you've converted today.

[ucrdem]

70. If you have better data, post it, TIA. nt

[beam me up scottie]

71. Why? I used results from the poll in the op to point out that you put your own spin on it.

You ignored all of the negative views and highlighted the ones that "prove" your opinion is the only one that is in lockstep with Americans.

Just like FoxNews.

[Hoyt]

75. As a statistics denier, do you also mistrust science?

[beam me up scottie]

77. I didn't deny statistics, I rejected the spin the op put on them.

I used data from the same poll to illustrate the difference between the two.

If anyone is a true believer it's the op.

[Joe Turner]

76. This should be good news for Hillary

Because now she does not have to hide every time someone asks her about where she stands on TPP. She can now, with confidence, support, heck, actually run on a platform of passing the TPP because Americans like free trade deals. See, she didn't have anything to worry about at all on the TPP issue. So I am looking forward to her forthcoming announcement of support for the TPP. This is smart politics right? Expressing support for popular issues that Americans want passed like TPP seems like a winner to me. What say you?

[ucrdem]

84. I think so. I think it's good news for Nov. 2016

because it means a certain single-issue challenger is on the losing side.

[beam me up scottie]

85. "it means a certain-single issue challenger is on the losing side"

What "single issue" would that be?

[ucrdem]

86. The TPP. nt

[beam me up scottie]

87. So according to you, Bernie Sanders is only about the TPP...

And you wonder why no one takes your opinion seriously.

[ucrdem]

90. "You cannot be on the fence on this one. You are either for it or you are against it. No fence-

sitting on this one," Sanders told CNN:

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., criticized his rival for the 2016 Democratic president nomination, Hillary Clinton, for not clarifying whether she supports President Obama's trade agenda.

"You cannot be on the fence on this one. You are either for it or you are against it. No fence-sitting on this one," Sanders told CNN Sunday.

Sanders was referring specifically to Trade Promotion Authority legislation, also known as "Fast Track," which the Senate began debating this week. The legislation would prohibit Congress from amending trade bills, limiting them to a strict up or down vote.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sanders-demands-hillary-clarify-trade-position/article/2564648

[beam me up scottie]

94. Lol! Just because you can only see one issue doesn't mean we don't see the others.

single-issue
adjective

1.
pertaining or devoted to one public issue only, especially a political one:
single-issue voters.

Nice try.

Perhaps you can find actual evidence that he's only running on one issue and post it.

[ucrdem]

98. He's said several times that TPP was the key issue in his campaign.

I'll find you a quote and post the link if you really can't remember back that far. Hang on.

Here:

And Sanders says the Pacific trade deal should be a key issue in the upcoming Democratic presidential primary campaign.

"If you want to understand why the middle class in America is disappearing and why we have more wealth and income inequality in America than we have had since the late 1920s, you have to address the issue of trade,” he says. “I think that Hillary Clinton and every candidate out there should in fact address whether or not they support this T.P.P."

http://digital.vpr.net/post/sanders-strongly-opposes-obamas-trans-pacific-trade-partnership

Looks like his gotcha got him.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Again: "pertaining or devoted to one public issue ONLY, especially a political one"

sin·gle-is·sue

adj.

Of, relating to, or concerned with a single public issue, especially a controversial one, to the exclusion of all other issues: single-issue politics.

Just like Sarah Palin, you have no idea what "gotcha" means.

[ucrdem]

105. I'm afraid you're grasping at straws. nt

[beam me up scottie]

115. You don't even know the definitions of the words you're flinging around. You're the poster child for

grasping at straws

In such a desperate situation that you will try even the most unhopeful way of solving it; from the idea of a drowning person trying to gain a hold on anything at all, however flimsy.

[Joe Turner]

89. Isn't it good news to distingush herself from Sanders and O'Malley

Since you and Pew say it is a winning issue, should she not, right now, come out strongly in favor of TPP? I'm mean it's a no-brainer right?

[ucrdem]

91. I don't see the hurry but it will come out soon enough.

Certainly in the debates.

[Joe Turner]

97. Why wait for the debate?

Especially when her challengers are constantly bashing her for being in support of past free corporate trade deals with the insinuation that she secretly supports the TPP. Shouldn't she call out Sanders and skewer him for being against the TPP? After all, her position is the same as most Americans, according to you and Pew. Seems like the time is right for Hillary to make an unequivocal statement in support of TPP and contrast that with her challengers' opposition to it. Makes sense to me. How about you?

[ucrdem]

103. Maybe because those bashes are going to boomerang?

Why bash an opponent when they're doing a great job of it themselves?

[Joe Turner]

114. Sure, keep on telling that to yourself

[yallerdawg]

68. It's simply amazing...

this opposition to the most liberal progressive trade promotion for labor standards, environmental standards, addressing NAFTA issues, international standards of positive US-led conduct...as if no other parties from China to every capitalist corporation in America won't do deals without us or any other concern other than profit!

I know Obama is 'amazed', too!

[ucrdem]

69. LOL, yes it is amazing.

I guess I'm beyond being amazed though. I absolutely love DU and its members but I've learned to accept the fact that as a group we are usually a couple of years behind the curve.

[IDemo]

78. 46% of Americans Believe In Creationism

That makes for a pretty convincing case, doesn't it?

[pampango]

134. Most of them are republicans. Most republicans oppose TPP. Does not mean

there is a connection between believing in creationism and opposing TPP. It's just a coincidence. 😊

[IDemo]

136. Just trying to point out

that the use of polling data of the general public does not equal the validation of an argument.

[pampango]

141. True. Polls are good for showing what people think. Not whether they are right or wrong.

Polls that show a consistent partisan difference on an issue are informative - whether it is creationism or TPP, if still not indicative of who is right and who is wrong.

[Rex]

174. U.S. Polling Shows NAFTA-style Trade Deals Becoming Even More Unpopular

[ucrdem]

180. There's no text in your message. nt

[Rex]

182. It's the title of an article. So why should there be any? nt

nt

[ucrdem]

185. You didn't post any article. nt

[Rex]

187. That's okay I didn't plan to.

[ucrdem]

190. This subthread did not go very well LOL.

[Rex]

191. If you say so.

[MFrohike]

80. Cool

Can you address the actual provisions of the treaty or is a badly worded popularity contest all you've got?

[beam me up scottie]

82. !

Don't harsh the buzz, they spent hours collecting previous posts and cobbling them together with certain poll numbers.

Voila!

They're right and everyone else is wrong!

[Vinca]

88. Keep in mind that half the population can't name the 3 branches of government.

Polls should be preceded by a basic literacy of the issues quiz.

[ucrdem]

92. Literacy test, check. nt

[Vinca]

213. If national polls are going to be reported and considered important,

you can't have "Jaywalkers" responding to them.

[pampango]

93. How would DU have reacted to FDR's International Trade Organization (and GATT), the IMF and World Bank

all proposed at the same time in 1944?

The polls show that most Democrats view positively these new international agreements being negotiated by Obama must be reflecting attitudes stuck in the "old FDR Democratic thinking" about cooperative international engagement rather than the "New Democratic" suspicion of such endeavors.

[ucrdem]

95. + a bazillian.

The internet is a great place to get and discuss the news, beats broadcast TV by miles, but it's probably even more susceptible to what might gently be called libertarian persuasion. And it works, and it gets reflected here. That's my analysis anyway.

[Romulox]

99. Opposition to free trade is "libertarian"? Next tell me about the trickle down populists.

Newspeak, in practice, every day here at DU.

[MFrohike]

107. Um, what?

Libertarians are in favor of the free flow of labor, capital, goods, and services. That's pretty much the basic definition of a classical liberal, from which the term libertarian is derived.

Don't throw around labels if you clearly don't understand them.

[ucrdem]

109. Libertarians object to regulation and TPP is 29 volumes of regulation.

At last count . . .

[MFrohike]

112. You're confused

Libertarians are against regulation that they see as inhibiting the ability of businesses to make money. Given that the TPP is explicitly an attack on the regulatory structure of the signatory states, your comment is asinine.

Find one libertarian who opposes the TPP, or any trade treaty, on trade grounds. Find just one. I dare you.

[ucrdem]

113. Sorry, but regulating trade is what TPP is all about.

More about the TPP here: TPP At-a-Glance

[MFrohike]

119. Hahahahahahaha

Man, you don't even know what you're peddling. Tell me, exactly how does it regulate trade. Tell me in three sentences.

[ucrdem]

124. Let me make this easier for you . . .

USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement:








link: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#axzz3Nij1eFRg

[MFrohike]

126. Yeesh

If you can't at least summarize a subject in three sentences or less, you don't understand it. Since you can't do that, and you make ridiculous claims like libertarians oppose free trade, my suspicion is confirmed: you don't understand this subject in the least. You really should stop posting on this subject because continuing to do so does you no favors.

[ucrdem]

129. 3-sentence summary posted upthread, but you couldn't be bothered to click the link. nt

[MFrohike]

132. It must be invisible

It'd only help you if you pointed it out, instead of claiming it's there without mentioning where.

[ucrdem]

149. LOL, it's in my sig among other places. But ya gotta click it. nt

[MFrohike]

170. Like I said, invisible

Blue links prove you can cut and paste, not that you understand what you're cutting and pasting.

[ucrdem]

171. None so blind as those who will not see I guess. Done here. nt

[MFrohike]

194. Heh

That was funny.

[neverforget]

204. Speaking of invisible....check out Tom Tomorrow and the Invisible Hand

Sums it up pretty well

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/11/1383377/-Cartoon-The-populist-menace

[ucrdem]

209. That's a funny cartoon, but the TPP is the opposite of the invisible hand.

As I recall the invisible hand is an argument for laissez-faire capitalism, i.e. letting the magic of the marketplace take the place of regulation. TPP however is an example of hyper-regulation.

And speaking of making the invisible visible, the link I keep mentioning goes to reply #20 of this thread, "TPP at a Glance," which does indeed contain a 3-sentence synopsis of the whole enchilada, plus a healthy number of DU links.

And here once again is the TPP At-a-Glance link, which incidentally is also in my signature:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6793235

[Romulox]

222. You're posting the sort of gibberish that only sways the profoundly ignorant. It's embarrassing. nt

[neverforget]

232. If by hyper-regulation you mean letting the corporations write the rules, then

yeah we agree. As we all know, the corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce are all about more regulations that will cause them to not hurt workers or the environment.

[yallerdawg]

138. Libertarian is synonomous with classical liberal?

Now that is a state of confusion, fer sure!

Libertarians consider government evil, and absence of intervention is not support for any economic policy. This is in no way classical liberalism.

[MFrohike]

139. Did I say that?

I said it's derived from it. The overlap is quite substantial, though most classical liberals weren't closet monarchists. Nonetheless, their general positions on the free flow issues are identical or close enough not to make much difference.

[MFrohike]

101. Is that a serious question?

GATT was a general lowering of tariffs. With the notable exception of the northeast, that is a position that has been historically supported by most of America. The IMF and the World Bank were proposed in order to prevent liquidity crises in order to support the Breton Woods agreement. None of that is remotely comparable to the "trade" treaties of today. TPP and TTIP have virtually nothing to do with tariffs, since those are already covered under WTO (and are about as low as possible).

I ask if you're serious, because I don't see how you can be if you actually know anything about the institutions you mention. The issue today has nothing to do with free trade because, assuredly, we have it. The most optimistic estimates of the effect of the TPP on US GDP are a couple of percentage points over a 10 year period. Most of those assumed gains come from financial services and government granted monopolies. That's not a strong case for attacking what are euphemistically called "non-tariff barriers." It's not actual products made by American workers that are going to benefit, it's finance and those very government granted monopolies (patent and copyright) that will benefit. Given their commanding position in our economy as it is, do we really need to give them yet another leg up?

GATT, the IMF, and the World Bank were a response to a genocidal war. They were a rational response to prior economic competition that had helped begin two world wars. If that is your concern, I suggest you contact Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, or Mario Draghi. Their QE and zero interest rate policies have enabled the largest currency war in history. That's a continuing source of diplomatic irritation and does not lend itself to a more peaceful world.

[pampango]

118. GATT was "a general lowering of tariffs". The ITO was much more & included international regulations

on labor rights, business practices, investor protection and others with an enforcement mechanism that involved arbitration to resolve international disputes.

In the sense that the ITO went way beyond just lowering tariffs and 'non-tariff barriers' and went into how a society functioned - labor rights, business regulation, investor protections, a commitment to full employment, etc., it was similar in nature to TPP and TTIP which go way beyond tariffs and traditional 'non-tariff barriers'.

[MFrohike]

122. Interesting point

I'd missed the ITO, probably because it was never ratified. Even so, I'm not sure that an invasive regulatory regime, based on the Four Freedoms, combined with a fixed exchange regime is anything like the current proposals. The TPP and TTIP seem closer to Napoleon's customs union than Roosevelt's proposals to reduce the ability of countries to undercut each other into war.

[L0oniX]

96. "Pew" Research ...stinks!

[Art_from_Ark]

214. More like "Pepe Le Pew" Research

[cheapdate]

100. My negative opinion on the TPP was hard won.

I've made a deliberate and persistent effort to educate myself about economics over the years. I've read books by Krugman, Sachs, Stiglitz. (one very good book was The Creation and Destruction of Value -- The Globalization Cycle, by Harold James) I've read works by free-market writers, left-wing writers, (I especially like Andre Gorz), radical thinkers, etc. I've argued these ideas with my family (my brother), my co-workers, and on the internets.

I'm opposed to the TPP on pragmatic and ethical grounds, which I won't go into here.

But my point is this. I've taken a long journey to get where I am. The average person in America today doesn't read books, doesn't read newspapers, doesn't dive deep into public policy, ethics, philosophy, etc. Capitalism is the status quo. In myriad ways, it's inculcated into the way we think from the time we're young until our adulthood. It's reflected in our institutions, our government, our society.

Trade is good. Protectionism is bad. Most people never take the time to seriously question their basic beliefs.

The arguments against free trade are not simple ones to make. The free-trade side (as is often the case) has the advantage of simplicity. Trade is good.

[gollygee]

110. I wonder what the percentage is of people whose hometowns' unemployment rates skyrocketed

after their larger employees packed up and moved on after NAFTA. I bet pretty low. It wasn't pretty and I don't want to see it happen again.

[Elwood P Dowd]

116. OP has to rec his own corporate propaganda post.

TPP is not free trade. It is another in a long line of corporate investment and outsourcing scams masquerading as so called "free trade" designed to give more profits to the mega-rich along with more power over our local, state, and federal laws and regulations.

[ucrdem]

123. I always rec useful information, sue me. Here's some more:

TPP At-a-Glance

[beam me up scottie]

125. Why aren't all of the other Hillary supporters joining you in your TPP crusade?

If this is such a good thing for America, shouldn't there be hundreds of DUers using this issue to stump for votes for Clinton?

[ucrdem]

127. I imagine they don't like being trolled but you can ask them yourself. nt

[beam me up scottie]

128. From what I've seen they're no shrinking violets when it comes to defending their opinions.

I just looked in the HC group and I don't see any support for the TPP.

Must be some other reason.

[ucrdem]

130. From what I've seen the trollery is 24/7. nt

[beam me up scottie]

131. Anti-TPP opinion is trollery?

You really should start looking up the definitions of those words you keep throwing around.

You're not doing yourself any favours by using the wrong terminology to misrepresent your opponents.

It just makes you look like a FoxNews pundit.

[yallerdawg]

142. You don't think they get paid per post, do you?

Just kidding, of course! Turnabout is fair play, isn't it?

[ucrdem]

150. They should be paying Skinner frankly.

Trollery that bad should be strictly pay-to-play.

[whatchamacallit]

133. Yay more corporate propaganda!

Obviously the thought of Obama screwing us breaks your mind, and causes you to seek myriad ways to put lipstick on a pig (TPP). That or a paycheck.

[madfloridian]

144. Maybe they think it's simply a trade agreement..don't realize full implications.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026569099

Maybe the polls don't ask the right questions??

[ucrdem]

151. More likely they have better information.

I know it has the best of intentions but I do not consider Public Citizen a reliable source of information.

[madfloridian]

168. But I didn't just use one source. There were others at the link.

I can not imagine how anyone thinks turning our country over to global entities who do not have our best interests at heart can be a good thing.

I trust Public Citizen and Wikileaks far more than I trust the words coming out of the mouth of our politicians including Obama. Hillary needs to take a stand.

[ucrdem]

175. Yes you did.

I have tremendous respect for you madfloridian, and your post has several sources and deserves a worthy refutation, so I will give it a little more scrutiny and post a fuller response when I have it.

[ucrdem]

208. Okay here's my take: much ado about sovereignty (ISDS) = FUD of various grades.

I'm going to put Public Citizen aside as it basically demagogues on a rather obscure issue that really deserves careful scrutiny, but rarely gets it, certainly not in Public Citizen. The LA Times piece does the same but with more restraint. That leaves the blog post by Sean Flynn who apparently knows something about the law:

http://infojustice.org/archives/34298

What Flynn seems to be arguing is that language written into the TPP to assuage anxiety about the loss of "sovereignty" to dispute resolution panels doesn't quite deliver what it promises, i.e., the ability of local laws to trump arbitration. And my response is, it seems like a perfectly legitimate position, but it's still an opinion as to whether TPP goes far enough to address what to me is a bogus issue to begin with.

Why? Because if a particular national industry (let's say, pork producers) really can't abide by the decision of a dispute resolution panel (let's say, regarding country of origin labeling laws on imported pork), the offended jurisdiction (let's say, the US, in defense of the the Pork Producers Association) can always pull out of the game and stop importing pork. They would need of course to also stop exporting pork and many other goods. So it's a balancing act between interests at this stage and the arbitration is set up to adjudicate cases that the 29 volumes of the TPP don't or can't anticipate. If the final product is too onerous any particular nation they can refuse to enter at the start. As to the penalties for withdrawal I don't know any but I imagine it could be done without coming to blows. So the long and short is, dispute resolution is a way of making the whole thing work, and the benefits or we might say the greater good outweighs the lesser injuries.


p.s. here's a DU thread that I hope explains further why I think ISDS is a bogus wedge issue:

Sun May 24, 2015: ISDS up close and personal: Philip Morris, FUD vs TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026723402

[PowerToThePeople]

166. Newsflash

Propaganda is an effective tool.

[Rex]

173. U.S. Polling Shows NAFTA-style Trade Deals Becoming Even More Unpopular

[ucrdem]

176. There's no message in your message ...

[Rex]

177. Doesn't need to be. People are wising up to shitty deals made in secret.

[ucrdem]

178. That's called personal opinion. The OP is about an actual poll.

[Rex]

179. No it is the title of an article.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

[ucrdem]

183. It's customary to post a link for those who don't have a Vulcan Mind Meld app. nt

[Rex]

184. Oh okay if you say so.

[ucrdem]

188. This is your cue for "Looks like this thread isn't going like the OP thought"

or did I miss it?

[Rex]

189. Huh?

What was that about mind reading?

[GeorgeGist]

181. TPP is not about free trade.

It's about enriching the few at the expense of the many.

[Rex]

186. It is the same kind of 'free trade' Reaganites pushed on us for decades.

We need 'fair trade'.

[Art_from_Ark]

216. Yes, fair trade, not "free" trade

[Rex]

221. It is really disappointing to see so many progressives on this site parrot 'free trade'.

I don't think they know what it means! I think they feel safety in numbers - IOW just going along with the other fish.

[GoneFishin]

192. Working Americans don't think shipping jobs overseas is good. The survey is absurd on it's face.

[Elwood P Dowd]

206. Some of these rabid pro TPP posters make you wonder where they work

and whose agenda they are pushing.

[Art_from_Ark]

217. Absolutely

There is definitely an agenda that is being pushed, and pushed hard.

[GoneFishin]

219. That's for sure. Pretty sure they don't work on an assembly line, or worry about being foreclosed on

[Rex]

224. That has been proven, some of the loudest against OWS and pro Wall Street

have never worked a day of manual labor in their lives. They easily pull in 6-figures and believe the 1% will actually give a shit about them when the time comes. They are delusional enough to believe they are well off and the people that are not are at fault for it.

[GoneFishin]

230. Delusional indeed. Trusting poodles who the 1% would gladly serve up on a barbeque spit.

[Romulox]

223. The people who recommended this should be embarrassed. nt

[Rex]

226. There are some that have no shame at all, none.

So it is impossible for them to become embarrassed imo.

[Elwood P Dowd]

231. They are the same ones always pushing the mega-rich fake free trade agenda.

Recently, they've adopted the revisionist history saying NAFTA created over 20 million American jobs and without TPP we will become isolated with no international trade at all.

[ucrdem]

233. Meanwhile back at the ranch . . .

Barack Obama poised to hike wages for millions
By MARIANNE LEVINE 6/8/15

The Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660 – to as much as $52,000.

The Obama administration is on the verge of possibly doubling the salary levels that would require employers to pay overtime in the most ambitious government intervention on wages in a decade. And it doesn’t need Congress’s permission.

As early as this week, the Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660 – to as much as $52,000, extending time and a half overtime pay to millions of American workers. The rule has already come under fire from business and Republican opponents who say it will kill jobs and force employers to cut hours for salaried employees.

“The minimum wage they can’t do,” said Bill Samuel, director of legislative affairs for the AFL-CIO. “This is probably the most significant step they can take to raise wages for millions of workers.”

Congressional Republicans are gearing up for a major battle against raising the overtime threshold. The House Education and the Workforce subcommittee will devote much of a scheduled June 10 hearing on federal wage and hour standards to the overtime rule, even if it isn’t yet released.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/barack-obama-overtime-salary-levels-white-house-118688.html#ixzz3cWLChhhp

[BlueCaliDem]

241. Didn't see this but bookmarked and kicked and rec'd, ucrdem!

[ucrdem]

242. Thanks BCD!

Yeah I really went to town on this one LOL! Was it worth it? Hell yeah!

[BlueCaliDem]

243. AFL-CIO and a few other trade unions have done a good job demonizing the TPP

(although they've been suspiciously silent on the European version, the TTIP), and people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders - who hadn't even read the TPP drafts, for chrissakes - were out there propagating the trumped-up demonization, undermining President Obama.

And yeah, you going to town with it was more than worth it!

[ucrdem]

244. Yeah the demagoguing was out of control and not helpful.`

But it had to be done, and better Barack than Jeb. And I have to say it's a huge relief to see a certain populist getting trampled in the polls.