Trans-Pacific Partnership: Obama Sides With the Wrong People for the Wrong Reasons at the Wrong Time

[KamaAina]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/transpacific-partnership-obama_b_7665862.html

By siding with the Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in passing "fast-track" trade authority as a step toward signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), President Barack Obama triangulated against labor unions, environmentalists, consumer activists, and the base of his party.

The 60-38 vote in the Senate to give the president (and the next president) more executive power to negotiate trade agreements, which garnered the support of thirteen Democratic Senators, followed months of bitter in-fighting among Democrats.

President Obama not only expended his own "political capital" by pushing for fast-track but that of the Democratic Party too. He had a clear choice: either side with workers, environmentalists, consumers, and progressives - or side with Wall Street, Big Pharma, Walmart, and the Koch Brothers.

Republicans have been whining about Obama's "unconstitutional power grabs" for over six years. Now they turn around and give him fast-track authority - Wow! It's creepy to see Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan praising Barack Obama.

[villager]

1. When has this administration ever not sided with Wall Street?

[FiveGoodMen]

2. Republicans have been whining about Obama's "unconstitutional power grabs"

All theater.

The voters might be fooled, but the real power-grabbers know what's going on.

[Enthusiast]

14. I recognized it as theater long ago.

Repeat of the 1990s.

[HFRN]

3. since 1992, no matter who you elect, you get these trade deals

and if you oppose them, like most people do, you have NO choice on election day

none

[TheFarseer]

8. good thing a democrat negotiated it though

Because now he can attempt but fail to get protections for workers and the environment that the corps would ignore anyway. So thank God for that.

[HFRN]

10. True, Clinton protected workers from NAFTA harm nt

[pampango]

17. And trade has SOARED to between 1/3 and 1/2 of the level it is in progressive countries.

Trade is 24% of the US economy, 70% of Germany's, 60% of Canada's, 65% of Sweden's, 45% of Australia's, etc.

If increasing trade caused our economic problems, progressive countries would already be basket-cases of inequality and unemployment. They are not.

[HFRN]

18. so, no one was hurt by NAFTA or MFN-China, you say? nt

[pampango]

19. Progressive countries have more "NAFTAs" than the US and the same China in the WTO and do just fine.

China trades more with Europe than with the US. No one can say that "no one is hurt" by trade and trade agreements, but on balance progressive countries seem to think that they are good for their countries or they would have less of both than we do. Instead they have much more.

There is a lesson to be learned from the fact that best income equality and the strongest middle classes and unions are found in countries that trade much, much more than we do. While the country that trades the least (the US) has the worst income equality and weakest middle class and unions. It would leave one to believe that trade is not a crucial factor just a policy choice that progressive countries make.

As long as we concentrate on "solving" a problem (trade and trade agreements) that progressive countries don't view as 'problems', and spend less energy on the fight for liberal policies like progressive taxes, support for unions and adequate safety nets that progressive countries all have, our economic problems and inequality will continue. No country, including our own, has ever solved the problem of income inequality through trade restrictions. FDR did not do that. Neither do progressive countries today.

I realize that solving these problems is more difficult (hence not a 'realistic' goal in the eyes of some) because we will get zero help from republicans on any of them while we can at least get the support of tea party folks in congress and public who hate trade agreements too.

[Maedhros]

4. But we'll love him anyway!

No matter how many times he screws us over and rubs our faces in it, we'll still pretend he's a Progressive.

[grasswire]

5. and yet a DU member today...

....had the audacity to term Obama as "an ally on the left" of progressives.

Harumph.

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. 291 accomplishments and counting...

Apparently all He needs to do is start a discussion, and it gets listed as an accomplishment.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

6. Too soon to be critical. He just wowed us with "Amazing Grace"

[KamaAina]

12. Thread win!

[Enthusiast]

15. Yes it is the win.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Omaha Steve]

9. K&R!

[RiverLover]

11. We didn't elect a republican president for a reason!

Why are we getting a republican (unfair) trade deal?

'Nixon was more liberal,' Obama says

[Broward]

13. We unknowingly elected a republican.

[appalachiablue]

16. Never again

[raouldukelives]

20. Because in post CU America it literally matters less what you vote for

Than it does what you work for.

Sure, someone can always vote and speak progressive, but if every other action in that persons life benefits those fighting for regression, in the end, that individuals life it is at its very best a one step forward, two steps back legacy.

We are where a lot of people invested and labored for us to be. One persons pain is one persons pleasure.

I mean, people can gobble down a $200 lunch on Wall St and not even think of the lashes across the backs of children that money represents.

Just as Thomas Jefferson could wax eloquent on the rights of man, he could only do so off the suffering of the least among us. As great as his legacy was, and is, it is only because of his intelligence and the battles for independence for all of us, saving that, he is just another slave owner.

Just like many people and politicians today.