Obama says momentum building on 'historic' trans-Pacific trade deal

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Reuters

BEIJING (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday he sees momentum building for a Washington-backed free trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific, after arriving in Beijing on the first leg of an eight-day Asia tour.

U.S officials have ruled out a major announcement on the ambitious 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Beijing, where Obama will attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and hold talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

But business leaders attending the APEC forum have been looking for signs of progress on the TPP, especially as China is pushing for a separate trade liberalization framework called the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP).

Obama said the TPP, in a deadlock largely due to disagreement between the United States and Japan over how widely Japan will open its doors to farm exports, had the potential to be an "historic achievement".

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-momentum-building-toward-trade-deal-spur-054651699--business.html

[Omaha Steve]

1. NO TPP

And no fast track!!!

[840high]

2. ...^ that

[mahina]

62. Realizing this is part of the problem, but how do we know and how can we find out the details?

How we know what we know…lately from my end on this issue, I just accept random statements as factual because I have really no way at all to confirm that they are true.

Kind of like a Faux 'news' watcher.

Are there any resources that you know of, where we can find out the actual details?

(Aloha Omaha Steve. I am a fan of yours

[OhioChick]

78. +1000 n/t

[djean111]

3. Oh, it is a fucking "achievement", all right. Not a good achievement.

What Obama means is that it is in the bag, not enough Senate Dems to block it anymore.

[zeemike]

5. Good is a relative term

It is good for General Bullmose, so it is good for the USA...and General Bullmose is what counts today in America.

[nolabels]

4. Maybe the Magic can still work!

If Obama can get behind the TPP and support it then maybe the GOP would see it as win for Obama and oppose it

[djean111]

6. No, McConnell has said he is looking forward to working on this with Obama.

We are fucked. As usual.
And if the SCOTUS rules against subsidies, in two years all that will be left of the ACA is the Mandate, IMO.

[nolabels]

11. Ah shucks, can't you just play along?

The only thing more astounding than the GOP's short memory is their historic flip-flops.


P.S. this is the kind of thing most us knew, even if in just the back of our minds, that there might be a chameleon lurking. Same thing that Clinton started doing just two years into his first term. In sports it's 'no defense, no championship' and in politics it's kind of the same way with 'no principles, no continuing election votes' (kind of how we got here today)

[Ampersand Unicode]

17. The mandate is already gone thanks to Hobby Lobby

Cons just need enough "god-fearin' small business owners" to say that Jesus prevents them from covering any health insurance at all. Then more cons need to say that Jesus prevents them from paying for other people's health insurance or buying it at all, because only righteous belief in the Savior can heal the sick.

Also, the Bible says that Jewish doctors killed Jesus with vaccines, and the Greek founders of medicine were gay pagans. Hence, medicine is invalid.

[djean111]

18. What I meant was that we will still be forced to buy private insurance, no matter how much

it costs and how little it covers.

[Hissyspit]

7. Ugh.

[Lulu KC]

8. I could get really upset about this

The TPP has been a disappointment to me about President Obama for some time, and now he has his new friends in Congress to help him with it. I could get really sad and feel hopeless about this very easily. I am trying to figure out how to live with the news and not fall into a state of complete despair. If anyone has helpful hints, pass them on. I don't even have the energy to get mad anymore. No righteous indignation. Just a sense of powerlessness.

[Mojorabbit]

72. I feel the same way. nt

[Plucketeer]

9. I hadn't forgotten the TPP

But our media had - distracted by the elections as they were. It was one more point purposely ignored by both sides as the crescendo built towards last Tuesday. While I DID hear the phrase "trade agreements" mentioned a time or two, "TPP" was not in either side's lexicon. Probably an attempt at keeping the thing under the radar to stifle controversy.
NOW - with our corporately owned "representatives" holding all the reins, we're certainly destined to reap this rape of American commerce. I want to PUNCH someone! Trouble is, there's too damned many culpable chins to choose from.

[myrna minx]

10. historic job killng achievements! This is maddening.

[Fuddnik]

13. Not just job- killing.

Planet killing. Regulation killing. Government killing.

If that passes, we officially become a fascist state, ruled by corporations.

[ballyhoo]

14. We are are fascist State now. TPP turns us into a fascist State

whose sovereignty is controlled by a fascist corporation. We will become serfs to a monster that eats the least of us. I wonder will there even be a 2016 election.

[Ampersand Unicode]

23. EFF opposes TPP

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Countries would have to abandon any efforts to learn from the mistakes of the US and its experience with the DMCA over the last 12 years, and adopt many of the most controversial aspects of US copyright law in their entirety. At the same time, the US IP chapter does not export the limitations and exceptions in the US copyright regime like fair use, which have enabled freedom of expression and technological innovation to flourish in the US.

Part of the TPP legislation involves criminal penalties for so-called copyright "thefts," treating so-called "intellectual property" as "real property" (physical property) and charging "infringers" the same way you would a shoplifter or bank robber. The trickiest part of this is that "temporary copies" of media on a user's hard drive or other computing device would be treated as thefts. This is a piece of legislation described as "defective by design," because the technology for content delivery (even text/HTML) all but requires that a temporary copy be stored on the user's hard drive in order to streamline presentation. This is called the cache. An example would be if you are looking at a preview of a book on Amazon: a temporary copy of that image (the scanned photocopy of the pages) is saved to your hard drive. If you watch a legal movie trailer on Sony's website, a temporary copy of the video is saved in the cache. That would count as piracy even though the user is not actively seeking to "steal" the media. And it would be subject to criminal penalties as though you were nothing more than a petty thief or guilty of grand theft auto.

1984 was just 30 years behind schedule.

[ballyhoo]

32. That is exactly what happened. Orwell is just shaking

his ghostly head somewhere. And we have no real way to fight it. Our leader is doing a bait and switch to see if he can now win approval with the Republican Party and its voters so he can re-establish some kind of legacy; the Democrats continue to blame the low info, stupid voters, charges which many of them will remember, and the Supreme Court is now full-on Group from Hades. America ended with Reagan. The US will end with Obama.

[belzabubba333]

45. you can set up the computer to delete all of that on exit of browser

[Thespian2]

65. Correct.

The Koch-suckers now own America. Unfortunately, after TPP, they will own most of the world economy. Fearful in Canada.

[jwirr]

12. Bah

[SamKnause]

15. What a fucking

fraud and disappointment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

President Obama is not ignorant.

President Obama is not misinformed.

President Obama is not uninformed.

President Obama is a shill for the corporate overlords !!!!!!!!!

[CANDO]

83. And just like NAFTA...

Everyone gets to blame these on a Democratic president. I don't know how many average Republicans I've encountered who immediately point to Bill Clinton for NAFTA and disregarding that he largely got it done with Republicans in Congress. It was actually fairly bipartisan, but by and large it was done with huge Republican numbers.

[Enrique]

16. they better do it quick before people find out about it

Some trade experts note that reaching agreement before U.S. presidential electioneering picks up next summer could be crucial to avoiding U.S. domestic political hurdles.

[djean111]

20. Yes, I bet Hillary doesn't want this thing she helped write, laid at her doorstep.

[Enrique]

22. she could pretend she's against it

remember what Obama did in 2008, he took a public pose on NAFTA and then sent his people to tell Canada privately that he didn't really mean it?

[JEB]

19. World wide corporate fascism.

Quite the achievement. Largely done by so called Democrats

[stillwaiting]

37. It's ALL Republicans and Corporate Dems that support this.

Progressive Dems are against it.

So, I don't think I'd agree that it's largely Democrats.

It will be a huge part of Obama's legacy though, and he will be lavished with wealth for its passage.

[JEB]

38. NAFTA, the mother of all trade agreements passed under Clinton.

But you are correct, all the other Democrats I happen to know in my life are against any more of this crap.

[stillwaiting]

40. But, there were more Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress that voted for it.

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

They were deceptive in its passage (of course).

They got bipartisan support in both houses and way too many corporate Dems voted for it (in both houses), and I imagine that is what they will do again with the TPP.

TPTB will make the passage of TPP a bipartisan affair with corporate Repubs and corporate Dems voting for it. BUT the philosophy that openly supports it is conservative right-wing economic philosophy -- i.e., neoliberalism. And the only force fighting against neoliberalism resides in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There is zero opposition to neo-liberalism within the Republican Party.

If some Republicans vote against the TPP (which I'm sure they will), it would simply be theater and a tool to muddy the waters. Everything is done to ensure corporate wishes are enacted while at the same time causing as much division, turmoil and a true lack of understanding amongst the general population.

[JEB]

41. Well, yeah.

Corporations are well represented in congress and throughout our government. GOP is entirely sold out, and as you say Corporate Dems are all too common as well. We don't have elections based on ideas and policy. We have auctions and money talks.

[Shemp Howard]

21. Hello TPP. Goodbye American middle class. (nt)

[closeupready]

29. Oh yeah, you got that so right.

[NorthCarolina]

24. He is obviously not talkng about PUBLIC momentum...of course public opinion is immaterial. nt

[marmar]

25. Momentum building for a royal screwing of the 99 percent

[cascadiance]

26. We NEED nationwide county Democratic PCP platform committees writing "No on TPP" resolutions...

And all of us do it at the same time!

Hopefully we can get all of these organizations that are not too bought off to in the trenches show that the grass roots does NOT support him on this, and in a way that the media can't ignore. I we could do that, we would put a lot of pressure on Obama to NOT sign any such bill when it comes on his desk or basically very publicly turn his back on and leave his base. I think if we put enough pressure this way, perhaps he'll be forced to back down. It's too bad he issued this statement now, as it will be that much harder for him to back down later now.

[NordicLeft]

27. Obama, Hillary, or one Republican from from the pits of hell......

Doom of the USA, it just doesn't matter who the POTUS is given those 3 choices.

The TPP is a fascist hammer blow. The American political scheme is all fucked up, badly, so badly.

[abelenkpe]

28. O yay

[progressoid]

30. Three cheers for TPP!

[CanonRay]

31. I smell a sellout

Do you think it's possible that the DLC threw the election on purpose so Dems wouldn't be blamed when the inevitable TPP passed Congress?

I'll go get my tin foil hat now.

[hedda_foil]

33. "Do you think it's possible that the DLC threw the election on purpose so Dems wouldn't be blamed?"

Yup. Not the now publicly defunct DLC, perhaps, but the same bunch of strategists and consultants who run the show.

[CanonRay]

35. So, besides going 3rd party

and thereby guaranteeing that this country turns into and updated version of Mussolini's Italy, how do we get our Party back? I'm pissed, frustrated, and feeling quite hopeless.

[hedda_foil]

36. They've succeeded in blocking us in, that's for sure.

Anyone want to help me tap this nice cask of amontillado?

[ballyhoo]

39. The DLC knew what Obama was from the very beginning. They either stayed the course

because they were in agreement with it or didn't know how to change it and still reach their main objectives. Now, as you suggested, they may have thrown the election to keep their options open and not have to struggle through the path of destruction the election loss created. Meantime, the creator of that election loss is finalizing a bait and switch certifying his DINO status and will spend two years doing the real masters bidding in attempt to regain a legacy, even if that legacy is based on the wishes of the Republican Party. Many of us saw this long ago, but the feigned sincerity of the man and his magnificent though hollow speeches were enough to keep mainstream Democrats mesmerized until the very end when many of the silent ones not counted the polls Progressives are always salivating over finally made their statement.

A few years ago I actually thought the Republican Party was ending, and I believe Democrats could have accomplished that had they taken a stand. Now, I wonder about the sustainability of the Democratic Party with the Blue Dogs now in rant mode.

[highmindedhavi]

34. So we Dems will be responsible for...

NAFTA and the TPP?

[pampango]

49. Not only NAFTA and TPP but Woodrow Wilson's Tariff Act of 1913, FDR's RTAA and ITO, Truman's GATT,

#3 of Woodrow Wilson's 14 Pointsand the Underwood Tariff Act of 1913, the Kennedy round of GATT authorized in 1962, etc.

Historically republicans had a history of raising tariffs and restricting trade, while Democrats traditionally lowered tariffs and liberalized trade.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) into law in 1934. RTAA gave the president power to negotiate bilateral, reciprocal trade agreements with other countries. This law enabled Roosevelt to liberalize American trade policy around the globe. It is widely credited with ushering in the era of liberal trade policy that persists to this day.

The RTAA marked a sharp departure from the era of protectionism in the United States.

After the Civil War, Democrats were generally the party of trade liberalization, while Republicans were generally for higher tariffs. This pattern was clear in congressional votes for tariffs from 1860 until 1930. Democrats were the congressional minority in the majority of Congresses between the Civil War and the election of Roosevelt. During their brief stints in the majority, Democrats passed several tariff reduction bills. Examples include the Wilson-Gorman Act of 1894 and the Underwood Tariff Act of 1913. However, subsequent Republican majorities always undid these unilateral tariff reductions.

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

FDR's RTAA also started the practice of 'fast track' which had not existed before.

The removal, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all the nations ...

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

The main objectives of the Kennedy Round were to:

Slash tariffs by half with a minimum of exceptions
Break down farm trade restrictions
Remove non-tariff barriers
Help developing countries

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

The Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, which established an international institution for monetary policy, recognized the need for a comparable international institution for trade to complement the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The International Trade Organization, or ITO was the proposed name for an international institution for the regulation of trade.

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

Republican-led congresses never would approve US participation in the ITO. They probably would have rejected US involvement in GATT, as well, but that passed when Democrats still had a majority in congress.

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was a multilateral agreement regulating international trade. According to its preamble, its purpose was the "substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences, on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis." It was negotiated during the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment and was the outcome of the failure of negotiating governments to create the International Trade Organization (ITO). GATT was signed in 1947, took effect in 1948, and lasted until 1994; it was replaced by the World Trade Organization in 1995.

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

[highmindedhavi]

55. So all together these worked against the blue collar workers?

nt

[pampango]

58. I doubt that FDR, Truman, Wilson and JFK would contend that. Nor was the republican policy

of enacting high tariffs from the civil war to 1980 based on their desire to protect and empower the American blue collar worker. (The most unequal distribution of income in US history - even worse than today - came in the late 1920's after a decade of republican high tariffs and restrictive immigration laws.)

Certainly FDR and Truman protected American workers and unions with strong legislation (as most European countries do today) and did not feel that expanded trade was contrary to this (again, much the same as in Europe today).

[on point]

42. NO! Another sell out to corporate interests. The dems headed in wrong direction yet again!!

[blkmusclmachine]

67. The DEMS aren't stupid. Far from it. They are CORRUPT. And it includes Obama. I don't trust him.

[on point]

68. I have to agree. Only 3 choices: corrupt, conned, co-conspirator

[hughee99]

43. Well, the time to push this giant turd through congress is right after an election.

It gives elected officials the most time to hope their voters forget about this before the next election.

[dballance]

44. The Tea Baggers might actually be helpful blocking this.

We have an outside chance the Baggers will see this for what it is and do their best to block it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. Interesting ...

Would DU prefer that the U.S. sit out the trade negotiations with our biggest trade partners?

[Shemp Howard]

48. In a word, yes.

Yes, I would prefer that the US sit out these trade negotiations. And I'm not trying to be flippant here.

NAFTA dealt a body blow to American industrial union jobs. People in those jobs really were the backbone of the middle class. And those jobs were a way for poor people to join that middle class.

TPP will just finish off what's left of those jobs. There is no chance the TPP will give us fair trade. It will give us "free trade", something entirely different.

How do I know that? NAFTA is the model.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. So ...

the U.S. should just stop trading with Asia? Or, at best, have no say in how we trade with these nations?

[Shemp Howard]

57. The answer is fair trade.

Free trade = anything goes. If you can make sneakers for $1 a pair in China, go ahead and do that. Then ship them to the US for sale. Nothing else matters.

Fair trade means so much more. Workers (wherever they are) have certain rights, including a safe working conditions, a minimum wage, and a decent amount of time off. The factories themselves cannot be unrestricted polluters. And the nations involved have to mean what they say when they promise to enforce the rules.

In theory, I agree with you, 1SBM. In theory, we should be in negotiations with our trading partners. But in actuality, those negotiatons ALWAYS end in "free trade", not fair trade, deals.

Union US workers simply cannot compete with semi-slave labor from other countries. And union US factories simply cannot compete with unregulated foreign factories.

So, sadly, my position is that no negotiations are better than bad negotiations.

And one more thing. Democrats are for the working class, aren't they? I cannot, for the life of me, understand why our Democrat leaders are pushing proven destructive junk like NAFTA and TPP.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. I read, months ago ...

That a major sticking point in the negotiations is/was the U.S.' insistence that the agreement include wage, working conditions and environmental protections. (I'll try and find the article)

[peacebird]

70. TPP is a huge mistake. Most of it has nothing to do with trade. Gimmes for pharma, corps

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025675523

Here's one link

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Maybe ...

There is a bunch of unknowns with this ... However, I do not place much stock in the "leaks" as they are no where near "unbiased" reporters of what is.

[think]

79. Candidate Obama wanted trade agreements to work for American workers as well as corporations

Not sure where that Barack Obama went but he isn't here anymore....

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. He's still around ...

The Obama Administration is pursuing TPP to unlock opportunities for American manufacturers, workers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers – to support job creation and wage growth. We are working hard to ensure that TPP will be a comprehensive deal, providing new and meaningful market access for goods and services; strong and enforceable labor standards and environmental commitments; groundbreaking new rules designed to ensure fair competition between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies; commitments that will improve the transparency and consistency of the regulatory environment to make it easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to operate across the region; a robust intellectual property (IP) rights framework to promote innovation, while supporting access to innovative and generic medicines and an open Internet; and obligations that will promote a thriving digital economy, including new rules to ensure the free flow of data.

http://www.ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives

But let's ignore THESE negotiating positions, in favor of the LEAKED negotiating positions (held by unknown/undisclosed parties), as presented by parties hostile to any trade deal ... ostensibly based on the leaked negotiating positions.

[think]

81. ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them"

So the talking points sound great. But they aren't showing what's actually in the documents and that is VERY PROBLEMATIC.

This is what our other Democratic leaders are saying:

Elizabeth Warren Reveals Inside Details of Trade Talks
George Zornick on May 15, 2014 - 10:53 AM ET

Elizabeth Warren speaking at Public Citizen's annual gala at the National Press Club, May 14, 2014 (Daniel Swartz/REVAMP)

One of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s top priorities since coming to Washington has been opening up ongoing international trade talks to public scrutiny—she has, on several occasions, criticized the secret nature of the negotiations, and has pressed the administration’s trade representative directly about transparency...

~Snip~

...“From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill,” Warren said. “I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.’”

Read more:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179885/elizabeth-warren-reveals-inside-details-trade-talks

Yes, the talking points sound nice. But there must be a reason 151 House Democrats wrote a letter opposing fast tracking this legislation last year:

DeLauro, Miller Lead 151 House Dems Telling President They Will Not Support Outdated Fast Track For Trans-Pacific Partnership

WASHINGTON, DC—Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and George Miller (D-CA) announced today more than 150 Democrats in the House of Representatives oppose the use of outdated “Fast Track” procedures that usurp Congress’s authority over trade matters. The lawmakers’ opposition stands for both the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and any future trade agreements...

Full letter here:
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1455:delauro-miller-lead-151-house-dems-telling-president-they-will-not-support-outdated-fast-track-for-trans-pacific-partnership&Itemid=21

The unions aren't happy about the TPP either:

The ITUC has called on governments to stop negotiations on the “Trans-Pacific Partnership” agreement, criticising the secrecy and corporate bias in the current negotiations.

Sharan Burrow, ITUC General Secretary, said “This secretive trade deal is good for some multinational corporations, but deeply damaging to ordinary people and the very role of governments. Corporate interests are at the negotiating table, but national parliaments and other democratic actors are being kept in the dark. What we do know, much of it through leaks, is that this proposed deal is not about ensuring better livelihoods for people, but about giving multinational companies a big boost to profits. Governments should shut down the negotiations, and not re-open them unless they get genuine and transparent public mandates at home that put people’s interest in the centre.”

The current TPP proposals include provisions which would:
- Make governments submit to so-called investor to state dispute settlement (ISDS) procedures whereby investors can sue governments on a wide range of policies, including environmental and social policies ;
- Introduce patent protections that would boost pharmaceutical companies’ profits, but put vital medicines out of reach for millions of poorer people;
- Severely restrict governments’ ability to make national laws for public health, safety and general welfare with a ‘regulatory coherence’ chapter;
- Stop governments from giving priority to public policy aims when making decisions about public procurement;
- Impose a series of restrictions on governments’ abilities to regulate the financial sector, thus holding back efforts to reform damaging financial speculation and impeding governments from taking measures to maintain their balance of payment.

Proposals for protection of workers’ rights have met with heavy resistance from some countries, and appear to not cover all ILO Conventions that establish Fundamental Rights at Work or subnational (state and province) labour legislation. The proposals also contain no enforcement for environmental provisions, and fail to address the need for action to mitigate climate change....

~Snip~

The national trade union centers that support this call are: Australia, ACTU; Canada, CSN and CSD; Japan, JTUC-RENGO; Mexico, UNT; New Zealand, NZCTU; Peru, CUT and CATP; United States, AFL-CIO....

Read more:
http://www.ituc-csi.org/tpp-trade-talks-must-stop

If these SECRET trade deals written by CORPORATIONS are so wonderful why are all these Democratic leaders and unions AGAINST it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Because they are hearing only what the "leakers" ...

those that oppose any trade deal are telling/leaking to them.

It's like hearing only one side of a nasty divorce ... How can you NOT form an opinion on how terrible the party NOT telling you the story, is?

But with that side, all the Democratic leaders will eventually have an opportunity to weigh in on the agreement ... when it is presented to congress for study and a vote.

[Doctor_J]

47. Add this to THE LIST!

[GeorgeGist]

50. as in steamroller.

God the Stupid.

[tularetom]

52. He's playing umpteen dimensional chess again!!!

See, Obama knows that the corporate wing of the republican party wants the TPP to pass, because it puts corporations in the driver's seat. But he also understands that they will oppose anything he proposes, and their hatred of him outweighs their desire to give the farm away to the corporations.

Viola! He comes out strongly in favor of the TPP and they kill it just to piss him off.

Boy, is that Obama a genius.

[GitRDun]

53. The momentum must be coming from somewhere other than the US

Have not heard anything positive about it or any facts about what's in it.

[ReRe]

54. Victoria Jones of Talk Radio News Service...

... who calls in news via Skype to Thom Hartmann, says it is a good thing and Thom agreed. Said the only catch would be the Chair of the FCC (Moore?). Might not happen until after the first of the year.

[highmindedhavi]

56. Banks/Wall St, getting thier moneys worth from Obama

nt

[City Lights]

59. Well, ain't that swell.

[Sunlei]

61. I want New Zealand butter at a better price :P

TPP: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

[PSPS]

64. Obummer.

[blkmusclmachine]

66. 11 Dimensional rope-a-dope.

Obama's got the GOP right where he wants them ...

In full CONtrol of CONgress.

[Brigid]

69. "Historic?" Yes, it's "historic" all right.

An historic. f!@#$&* of there American worker.

[Octafish]

71. Hurray! We all have a share, right?

An equal share, right?

[Odin2005]

74. Obama = Fucking sell-out.

[JRLeft]

75. Belgium sounds nice!

[upaloopa]

76. Fuck that! Why Obama lost my support.

he has turned his back on what he promised in 2008.

[Octafish]

77. We are so screwed.

Wall Street and the 0.01%, not so much.