BARACK OBAMA GROUP: Excellent discussion time, BOG-style: "The 10 BIGGEST LIES You’ve Been Told...

[steve2470]

THIS IS THE BOG, IT IS A SAFE HAVEN GROUP CREATED BY THE ADMINISTRATORS OF DU. IT IS A PLACE FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT DEMOCRATS TO CELEBRATE THE 44TH POTUS, BARACK OBAMA, ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY, ACHIEVEMENTS AND POLICIES.

IT EXISTS FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THIS PRESIDENT AND EACH OTHER. PLEASE CHECK THE PINNED THREAD FOR THE SOP (STATEMENT OF PURPOSE) OF THIS GROUP. THIS IS NOT A FORUM.

IF YOU CANNOT RESPECT OBAMA, DEMOCRATS, THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THIS GROUP, OR THE MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP, PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE.

THANKS IN ADVANCE.





http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026659735

The 10 BIGGEST LIES You’ve Been Told About The Trans-Pacific Partnership

I know we BOG'gers will have a very civil and informative discussion.

[yallerdawg]

1. "True rank-and-file Democrats would never support this."

Just what do we call President Obama?

Not to mention a number of Senate and House Democrats.

And a lot of "rank-and-file Democrats" right here on DU and across the country!

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Interestingly, ...

DUer Pampago has been posting polling results that indicate a majority of Democrats (i.e., the rank and file) DO, in fact, support TPP and Fast Track; while, it is our representatives (you know ... the folks DU takes great pleasure in lambasting as out of touch with the Democratic base and as having sold their soul to the corporate menace) that oppose it ...

And, curiouser ... a majority of republicans (i.e., the rank and file) oppose the TPP and Fast Track; while, their representatives support it.

What to do? I think I'll stay agnostic on the TPP, until it is made public for me to read ... even though, I'll admit ... much of the more technical stuff, I won't understand/understand the ramifications of the terms ... But I am confident, I can figure it out!

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. It's true. Like the President said, "we've got folks still fighting the last battle".

"Moreover, there is a discernible partisan split in support for specific trade agreements now under negotiation. According to another Pew Research poll, more than half the American public thinks both TPP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), an Obama administration trade and investment initiative with the European Union, would be good for the country. But Democrats and Republicans disagree on their merits. Just 49% of Republicans back TPP and only 44% support TTIP. Democrats are more supportive of both TTIP (60%) and TPP (59%)."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/08/americans-agree-on-trade-good-for-the-country-but-not-great-for-jobs/

[Iliyah]

3. I remember all the horrid threads about ACA

so I'll wait for more information concerning TPP.

Anything to trash Pres O always makes it way on the DU with "tons" of threads. Some posters have an hated obsession with the man which is very similar to RWers.

[Andy823]

4. I agree.

I am waiting also to see "exactly" what is and isn't in it. One thing I know for sure is I am not taking the word of any of those who are against it when they keep complaining it's "so secret" nobody knows what is in it, yet they keep telling us "what is in it". They jump at every "leak" the can find, yet can not tell us who the leakers are. The same Obama haters who have been running around with their hair on fire for years, telling us the president will "end SS", is a republican, and hundreds of other insane comments are now doing the same thing with the TPP, and since they track record on predictions never seem to come true, I will wait for the real facts.

[treestar]

23. +1

It's an obvious agenda to use the TPP as a way to bash only.

Most of the arguments are stupid - end of national sovereignty really?

[JoePhilly]

26. And Social Security, and DADT, and DOMA, and Iraq and on and on ...

He was going to cut SS ... make the Bush tax cuts for the 1% perminant ... invade Syria, Egypt, Libya ... pass XL pipleine, kill Net Neutrality ...

... the folks making those predictions have been wrong over and over ... and they've been screaming about TPP for most of this same time ...

... I do not trust them in the least!!

[yallerdawg]

5. "Trade agreements should proceed through open Congressional Regular Order."

What could go wrong?

This was supposed to be the easiest part. Just today on a cloture vote (supermajority rule) to consider debating and amending the TPA, we had a "procedural dispute." The Republican majority had allowed TPA and TAA (a bill providing further displaced worker benefits for job losses) to advance together as a concession to the Democrats.

Now, TAA alone would be a hard pill to swallow for House Republicans, but the Senate felt they could get the 2 bills approved.

Then, the Senate Democrats decided they really wanted 2 other separate bills added to the package. One about trade in Africa. The other about "currency manipulation." This second extra bill is basically the famous "poison pill."
Obama has explained adding more "currency manipulation" rules, even if agreed to by 11 other countries, would leave us open to charges by other nations of "currency manipulation" regarding Federal Reserve policies - a guaranteed veto by Obama.

The Republicans did not add the extra 2 bills -- the Democrats rejected just the 2 bills included. Done.

Who knows what's next? If anything.

Imagine 535 Congresspersons doing this to every chapter and verse of trade negotiations, and you now understand why Regular Order doesn't work and will not work.

Unless you want what we have had for years -- nothing.

[ucrdem]

7. Major goal post shifting, and for what?

To show they can? It's like an extortion racket. Fork over your {insert Obama initiative} or your TPP dies. I can guess what the late-night deal was but in any case this is very dirty politics and unworthy of Dems.

[yallerdawg]

14. 149 amendments have been proposed revising TPA so far.

Senators have until 1 PM ET tomorrow to offer up more amendments.

Goal posts will be moving!

[yallerdawg]

15. One day later...

The deadline for amendments was extended, likely a Thursday 1PM ET on TPA cloture vote.

Meanwhile, objections, negotiations on amendment votes, and now a filibuster by Rand Paul and others.

This is how we could negotiate treaties with other nations?

Regular order doesn't work when we have 'outsiders' involved. It's embarrassing.

[steve2470]

6. for the record...

I asked the White House to send a staffer to this link in the BOG to help us discern facts. No response to me so far. I sent the request via the web form at whitehouse.gov.

President Obama would have been mega super duper awesome, but yeah, reality bites. I'd be very pleasantly surprised if he showed up.

[ucrdem]

8. Wow

that would be nice!

[ucrdem]

9. I think the problem is that trade is a Dem wedge issue.

It's sort of a lose-lose for the WH because there are several mega-deals in the offing, including TPP, and TPA gives Obama control of them. Do I want that? Hell yes. These deals are going down with or without PBO and I'd much prefer that he supervise their negotiation than Jebster or some other clown. So he needs TPA even if the deals themselves are not appealing to some Dems, because they'll be infinitely worse if he doesn't get it. So the eleventh-hour politicking putting TPA at risk is really unconscionable.


p.s. the Salon article is a 100% factually challenged valentine.

[yallerdawg]

11. No elected Democrat can go wrong opposing trade deals.

They know corporations will seek profit, businesses will close, jobs will be lost. Short of 100% protectionism and isolationism, and rejection of automation and innovation, even competition, corporations will seek profit, businesses will close, jobs will be lost.

Trade and economics and geopolitical considerations are immensely complicated.

The electorate wants a 30 second answer. As we know, that is impossible!

So, Democrats have a 30 second answer. NO! Did trade cause job losses? YES!

So, how did you vote on trade? NO is the safest answer ever.

[ucrdem]

12. Yep. That's why there are a lot of maybes in the California delegation at least.

As long as they know it's going to pass they're not going to stick their necks out and vote for it if the optics are bad. But demagoguing against it for months and months, launching a presidential campaign based on opposition to it, etc seem like the worst kind of pandering.

[yallerdawg]

10. Chicken or egg?

Congress has been authorizing the executive branch to negotiate these trade deals. TPA fast-track is Congressional approval of the guidelines and process.

Congress recognizes the near impossibility of approving trade deals through Regular Order. This week, 3 additional bills had to be added into the mix just to get to their own approval of the guidelines for negotiation!

The present negotiations with the Pacific Rim nations have been underway for over a decade, and have been partially conducted without legislated Congressional authority, which expired in 2012. TPA finalizes Congressional authority to negotiate.

If Congress creates the authority and rules, how is the president doing anything more than accepting the given responsibility? Then the same Congress chastises him for following the rules? Absurd!

[yallerdawg]

13. "'Fast track' greases the skids."

In the Senate debate today of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), Orrin Hatch gave a primer on 'fast track.'

Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

From US Senate floor speech (as transcribed at CSPAN.ORG):

THROUGHOUT THE DEBATE SURROUNDING THIS BILL, I'VE HEARD THE TERM "FAST-TRACK" USED QUITE A FEW TIMES. THERE WAS IN FACT A TIME WHEN TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY WAS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS "FAST-TRACK." NOW ONLY T.P.A. OPPONENTS USE THAT TERM. THEY WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT UNDER T.P.A., TRADE AGREEMENTS COME TO CONGRESS AND ARE PASSED IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE. SOMETIMES THEY USE THE TERM "RUBBER STAMP" AS IF UNDER T.P.A. CONGRESS WIELDING ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OVER A TRADE AGREEMENT, THE POWER TO REJECT IT ENTIRELY IS A MERE ADMINISTRATIVE ACT.

MR. PRESIDENT, THERE IS A REASON THE TERM "FAST-TRACK" ISN'T USED ANYMORE. IT'S BECAUSE THOSE WHO ARE BEING TRULY HONEST KNOW THAT THE PROCESS IS ANYTHING BUT FAST. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO WALK THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS THE CONGRESS MUST UNDERTAKE BEFORE RENDERING A FINAL JUDGMENT ON A TRADE AGREEMENT TO SHOW HOW THOROUGHLY THESE AGREEMENTS ARE VETTED BEFORE THEY EVER RECEIVE A VOTE. BEFORE I DO, THOUGH, I WILL NOTE FOR MY COLLEAGUES THAT THIS BILL ADDS MORE TRANSPARENCY, NOTICE, AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS THAN ANY T.P.A. BILL BEFORE IT. THIS BILL GUARANTEES THAT CONGRESS HAS ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO RENDER AN INFORMED UP-OR-DOWN VERDICT ON ANY TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED USING THE PROCEDURES IN THIS BILL.

MR. PRESIDENT, CONGRESS' OVERSIGHT ON ANY TRADE AGREEMENT BEGINS BEFORE THE NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN. UNDER THIS BILL, THE PRESIDENT NOT ONLY -- MUST NOT ONLY NOTIFY CONGRESS THAT HE IS CONSIDERING ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH OUR TRADING PARTNERS, BUT ALSO WHAT HIS OBJECTIVES FOR THOSE NEGOTIATIONS ARE. SPECIFICALLY, THIS HAS TO HAPPEN THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT CAN START NEGOTIATING. THAT'S THREE MONTHS FOR CONGRESS TO CONSULT ON AND SHAPE THE NEGOTIATIONS BEFORE THEY EVEN BEGIN. CONGRESS' OVERSIGHT CONTINUES AS THE NEGOTIATIONS ADVANCE.

THIS BILL REQUIRES THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE TO CONTINUALLY CONSULT WITH SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND ANY OTHER SENATE COMMITTEE WITH JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY A TRADE AGREEMENT. MOREOVER, USTR, THE U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE, MUST UPON REQUEST MEET WITH ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS TO CONSULT ON THE NEGOTIATIONS, INCLUDING PROVIDING CLASSIFIED NEGOTIATING TEXT.

THE BILL ALSO ESTABLISHES PANELS TO OVERSEE THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS. THESE PANELS, THE SENATE ADVISORY GROUP ON NEGOTIATIONS, AND THE DESIGNATED CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORS CONSULT WITH AND ADVISE THE USTR ON THE FORMULATION OF NEGOTIATING POSITIONS AND STRATEGIES. UNDER THE BILL, MEMBERS OF THESE PANELS WOULD BE ACCREDITED ADVISORS TO TRADE NEGOTIATION SESSIONS INVOLVING THE UNITED STATES.

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT INTENSIFIES AS THE NEGOTIATIONS NEAR CONCLUSION. AT LEAST SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNS A TRADE AGREEMENT, HE MUST SUBMIT A REPORT TO CONGRESS DETAILING ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES TO U.S. TRADE REMEDY LAWS.

THEN, THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNS A TRADE AGREEMENT, HE MUST NOTIFY CONGRESS THAT HE INTENDS TO DO SO. AT THE SAME TIME, THE PRESIDENT IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF THE AGREEMENT TO THE U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION. THE I.T.C. IS TASKED WITH PREPARING AN EXTENSIVE REPORT FOR CONGRESS ON THE POTENTIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS THE AGREEMENT WILL HAVE ON THE U.S. ECONOMY, SPECIFIC ECONOMIC SECTORS, AND AMERICAN WORKERS.

I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE NEXT STEP REQUIRED BY THIS BILL BECAUSE IT IS A NEW REQUIREMENT, NEVER BEFORE INCLUDED IN T.P.A. 60 DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT CAN SIGN ANY TRADE AGREEMENT, HE MUST PUBLISH THE FULL TEXT OF THE AGREEMENT ON THE USTR WEB SITE SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SEE IT. THIS ENSURES AN UNPRECEDENTED LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND GIVES OUR CONSTITUENTS THE MATERIAL AND TIME THEY NEED TO INFORM US OF THEIR VIEWS.

ONLY AFTER THE PRESIDENT HAS MET THESE NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS, ONLY AFTER HE HAS PROVIDED THE REQUIRED REPORTS AND ONLY AFTER HE HAS MADE THE AGREEMENT AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY HE FINALLY SIGN THE AGREEMENT.

MR. PRESIDENT, THE PROCESS THIS BILL REQUIRES BEFORE AN AGREEMENT IS EVEN SIGNED IS OBVIOUSLY QUITE COMPLEX, FULL OF CHECKS, AND BALANCES. AND PROVIDES UNPRECEDENTED TRANSPARENCY FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

HOWEVER, ONCE THE PRESIDENT DOES SIGN THE AGREEMENT, HIS OBLIGATIONS CONTINUE.

60 DAYS AFTER SIGNING THE AGREEMENT, THE PRESIDENT MUST PROVIDE CONGRESS A DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES TO U.S. LAW HE CONSIDERS NECESSARY. THIS STEP GIVES CONGRESS TIME TO BEGIN CONSIDERING WHAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT THE TRADE AGREEMENT. THIS IS ALSO THE TIME WHEN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HOLDS UP IN HEARINGS ON THE TRADE AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO GATHER THE VIEWS OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE PUBLIC.

FOLLOWING THESE HEARINGS, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT STEPS IN THIS ENTIRE PROCESS OCCURS: THE SO-CALLED INFORMAL MARKUP. THE INFORMAL MARKUP IS NOT ALWAYS WELL-UNDERSTOOD SO I WILL TAKE A MOMENT TO DESCRIBE IT. THE INFORMAL MARKUP OCCURS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT FORMALLY SUBMITS THE TRADE AGREEMENT TO CONGRESS. AS WITH ANY MARKUP OF LEGISLATION, THE COMMITTEE REVIEWS AND DISCUSSES THE AGREEMENT AND IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION WITNESSES ABOUT THE AGREEMENT, AND CAN AMEND THE LEGISLATION. IN THE EVENT OF AMENDMENTS, THE SENATE CAN PROCEED TO A MOCK CONFERENCE WITH THE HOUSE TO UNIFY THE LEGISLATION. THE PRACTICE OF THE INFORMAL MARKUP PRODUCES OR PROVIDES CONGRESS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CRAFT THE LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING A TRADE AGREEMENT AS IT SEES FIT AND TO -- AS IT SEES FIT AND TO DIRECT THE PRESIDENT ON THE FINAL PACKAGE TO BE FORMALLY SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS. WHILE THE INFORMAL MARK UPS -- WHILE THE INFORMAL MARKUP IS WELL-ESTABLISHED IN PRACTICES, THIS BILL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE T.P.A. SPECIFIES THAT CONGRESS WILL RECEIVE THE MATERIALS IT NEEDS IN TIME TO CONDUCT AN INFORMAL MARKUP. IT REQUIRES 30 DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT FORMALLY SUBMITS A TRADE AGREEMENT TO CONGRESS, HE MUST -- HE OR SHE MUST SUBMIT THE FINAL LEGAL TEXT OF THE AGREEMENT AND A STATEMENT SPECIFYING ANY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION HE WILL TAKE TO IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT. THE BILL, THEREFORE, ENSURES THAT COPPING WILL HAVE ALL THE MATERIALS -- THAT CONGRESS WILL HAVE ALL THE MATERIALS IT NEEDS IN TIME TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH MARKUP. ONLY ON THIS POINT MAY THE PRESIDENT FORMALLY SUBMIT LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING A TRADE AGREEMENT TO CONGRESS AND ONLY AT THIS POINT DO THE T.P.A. PROCEDURES FIRST ESTABLISHED IN THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 KICK IN.

ONCE A BILL IMPLEMENTING A TRADE AGREEMENT IS FORMALLY SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS, A CLOCK FOR CONSIDERATION OF THAT BILL STARTS. THIS CLOCK GIVES CONGRESS 90 DAYS IN SESSION TO CONSIDER AND VOTE ON THE BILL. AS EVERYONE HERE KNOWS, 90 LEGISLATIVE DAYS TAKES A LOT LONGER THAN 90 CALENDAR DAYS.

MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN I HEAR MY COLLEAGUES TALK ABOUT "FAST-TRACK," I THINK THIS IS WHERE THEY START THE CLOCK. THEY ARE DISREGARDING THE YEARS OF OVERSIGHT AND CONSULTATIONS THAT OCCURRED DURING TRADE NEGOTIATIONS. THEY ARE IGNORING THE MANY MONTHS OF CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF TRADE LEGISLATION THAT OCCURS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT EVER FORMALLY SUBMITS THAT LEGISLATION TO CONGRESS. THEY ARE DISCOUNTING THAT BY THAT POINT IN THE PROCESS CONGRESS HAS HELD HEARINGS ON THE AGREEMENT, RECEIVED VIEWS FROM THE PUBLIC, AND EXTENSIVELY REVIEWED THE AGREEMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION THROUGH AN INFORMAL MARKUP. CALLING THIS PART OF THE PROCESS "FAST-TRACK" IS LIKE SKIPPING TO THE END OF THE BOOK AND SAYING THE AUTHOR DID NOT DEVELOP THE PLOT.

AS I SAID, EVEN HERE AT THE END OF THE PROCESS, THE BILL PROVIDES MORE THAN THREE MONTHS FOR HEARINGS, COMMITTEE ACTION, FLOOR DEBATE, AND VOTES. SOMETIMES I THINK THAT ONLY A UNITED STATES SENATOR COULD ARGUE THAT MORE THAN THREE MONTHS TO FORMALLY CONSIDER LEGISLATION, LEGISLATION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN THOROUGHLY DEBATED, VETTED AND REVIEWED, IS MAKING DECISIONS TOO FAST. MR. PRESIDENT, WHEN CONGRESS VOTES ON AN IMPLEMENTING BILL, IT IS ONLY AFTER YEARS OF OVERSIGHT AND MONTHS OF FORMAL REVIEW.

SO I HAVE TO ASK, DOES THIS PROCESS SEEM FAST TO YOU? IF T.P.A. IS NOT FAST, THEN WHAT DOES T.P.A. DO? PUT SIMPLY, T.P.A. GUARANTEES A VOTE. T.P.A. SAYS TO THE WORLD THAT WHEN THEY SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES, CONGRESS PROMISES TO SAY -- QUOTE -- "YES" -- UNQUOTE OR -- QUOTE -- "NO" -- UNQUOTE IN THAT AGREEMENT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY T.P.A. GUARANTEES THAT CONGRESS WILL HAVE THE INFORMATION AND THE TIME WE NEED TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

WITHOUT T.P.A., WE ARE ESSENTIALLY TELLING THE PRESIDENT TO TRY AND NEGOTIATE THE PRICE OF BUYING A HOUSE AND THEN AFTER BUYING THAT HOME WE ARE ASKING TO RENEGOTIATE WITH THE SELLERS. THIS WOULD BE ABSURD AND ROB AMERICANS OF THE FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITIES, EMPLOYMENT, AND FAIR WORLD MARKETPLACE THEY CAN ONLY GET FROM FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS.

[Hekate]

16. Belated kick

[steve2470]

17. conversation with my activist brother about TPP went like this

(paraphrasing)

Me: I want to see the TPP before I condemn it.
Him: I already condemn it.
Me: I'm trusting President Obama to protect American workers.
Him: Organized labor including Trumka will deny donations to the Democratic Party if it's approved.

I'm a very strong supporter of labor, yet I still have trust in President Obama. I'm very very torn. Can anyone else relate to this struggle ?

[MBS]

20. yes -I'm also very pro-labor (especially these days, when labor is getting shafted all around)

BUT I trust Obama on this one.(or,OK, yes, I'll at least wait to criticize it until I see it)
One reason I trust him on this: unlike many other politicians Pres. Obama actually thinks things through completely before he recommends a course of action, and he's been muscular in his defense of the benefits of the TPP, and of the environmental and labor protections embedded in the bill.

[steve2470]

24. This is how I see President Obama and the TPP

He's a very smart Constitutional lawyer and just lawyer in general. He's aware of the past history of NAFTA. He's very aware of the concerns we progressives have. I can't see him lying through his teeth about TPP or exaggerating its beneficial effects. He's addressed the potential pitfalls as just that, potential and very unlikely to be realized. He knows we will all see the TPP in due time, so it would be foolish in the extreme not to paint an accurate picture of it. I'm sure he's had thoughts of his historical legacy, and I'm quite confident he doesn't want to go down in history as the destroyer of American labor, the American economy and the American environment.

[MBS]

25. ditto, ditto, ditto n/t

[Cha]

18. Kick!

[ucrdem]

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

Turns out this isn't such a losing issue after all, particularly among Hispanics (71%), younger voters (69%), and liberal Democrats (59%), who view free trade agreements positively:
.............................

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.).



http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/05/29/voice-when-did-democrats-become-americas-free-trade-believers/

...................

So President Obama was right again. Who'd a thunk it?

[yallerdawg]

21. A calm, rational description of trade promotion authority (TPA).

This is from a letter my congress critter sent me, Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL). She is neutral on trade and is likely to vote no, but she doesn't spin it:

"Included in Congress' enumerated powers are those to levy taxes, duties, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations, while the president is charged with the authority to enter treaties and international agreements after seeking the advice and consent of the Senate. After many decades, TPA emerged as a compromise method for Congress to set legal boundaries and backstops for trade negotiations, but retains Congressional power for final approval of any trade deal. Various versions of TPA authorization have passed Congress since the Trade Act of 1974, and the most recent TPA agreement expired in 2007.

Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced legislation that would reauthorize TPA, the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (H.R. 1890). This legislation requires the president to pursue a strictly outlined set of negotiating principles, including human rights issues and currency manipulation to promote more open, equitable market access. Any proposal would be available to view by the public for 60 days before presidential signature."

This demonstrates it would be the will of Congress for President Obama to pursue free trade agreements, not something the president tries to take from Congress.

Could you imagine the administration working for 6, 7, even 8 years on the most progressive trade policies ever, and we abandon our support for this president?

[ucrdem]

22. Good explanation.

That's pretty much my understanding -- FTA's sort of fall between the stools constitutionally and FTP's are a reasonable compromise of enumerated powers.

As for TPP, I think it will have an immediate positive effect on the economy in terms of job gain, export volume, probably import volume too, and I think the jobs lost will be far fewer than with NAFTA, as there frankly aren't many industries left that haven't already offshored as much as they can. Plus I think the issue has been given considerable thought by PBO, who reportedly asked Steve Jobs in 2011 if iPhones couldn't be made in the US, and there will be provisions and incentives discourage job flight in the final bill.

p.s. Jobs reportedly said no way Jose.

[yallerdawg]

28. Who advises on TPP? Just corporations?

https://ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees
Clayola Brown National President, A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI)
Thomas Buffenbarger International President, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM)
Tim Canoll President and CEO, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)
Jim Clark President, International Union of Electronic, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE)
David B. Durkee International President, The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTWGM)
Leo Gerard International President, United Steelworkers (USW)
Raymond Hair
President, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), AFL-CIO/CLC
Joseph T. Hansen President, United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW)
Dave Heindel Secretary-Treasurer, Seafarers International Union
Mary Kay Henry International President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Ed Hill International President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
James P. Hoffa General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
Ken Howard President, Screen Actors Guild/American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)
Gregory Junemann International President, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE)
Richard Kline President,Union Label & Service Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Sara Nelson International President, Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO (CWA)
Marc Perrone International President, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW)
Jorge Ramirez President, Chicago Federation of Labor
Cecil E. Roberts, Jr. President, United Mineworkers of America (UMWA)
Arturo Rodriguez President, United Farm Workers of America (UFW)
Frederic Rolando President, National Association of Letter Carriers
Lee Saunders President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Liz Shuler Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
Richard Trumka President, American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
Baldemar Velasquez President, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC)
Randi Weingarten President, American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Dennis Williams President, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
Edward Wytkind President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO