General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSorry to say this but I feel Obama's strong promotion of the TPP
overshadows and undermines any positive achievements he may have made. It will at least have a more disastrous effect on the future lives of the common man.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)
Baobab
(4,667 posts)A very good argument can be made that no trade deal is valid because they attempt to bypass term limits and the scope of the executive or legislative branches and the concept of rule "of by and for the people".
Even if you grant corporations personhood and give them votes in proportion to their donations to politicians we STILL have not granted legislators infinitely long permissions to give away the future and then lie about it.
Response to BigBearJohn (Reply #3)
Baobab This message was self-deleted by its author.
Avalon Sparks
(2,565 posts)Just share a few of the amazing ones... I'm serious.
The TPP looks like it will impact a lot of folks, especially with regard to drug pricing.
I do like Obama and believe he has integrity, in addition he's been the least harmful of all Presidents since Reagan to the non-elites. However the bar is pretty low there.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)last spotted on the bottom of the Marianas Trench
Kall
(615 posts)like Mitt Romney's health care plan. Weren't you paying attention? The Democratic front-runner is currently using it as a shield against single-payer health care.
dchill
(38,474 posts)
cprise
(8,445 posts)will be undone when corporations get around to challenging those laws.
"Good" neoliberals will put on a good show and pretend to pass meaningful legislation while giving multinational corps the ability to do the opposite.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)and recognition of Cuba? The deal with Iran? The elimination of Osama bin Laden?
cprise
(8,445 posts)(actually, nullification) of both environmental and labor laws? FTAs are the 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card that's handed to defendants under the table as the show trial commences.
I will grant that Obama has had some international successes, but at the same time has done far more damage throughout the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere. We are at war in Syria, Libya and Yemen now -- in addition to our older conflicts. Ukraine has turned into a proxy war with Russia. In Haiti and Honduras, the Obama administration has sided with coups against democratically elected governments. Given his track record, I'd say Obama needs Cuba far more than Cuba needs the US.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I agree with you about the TPP, but, if we're listing positive achievements, the stimulus (ARRA), imperfect as it was, deserves inclusion. The program created or saved a couple million jobs. The recession would have been much worse if McCain had won the election.
cprise
(8,445 posts)who already has a gun pointed at you. That money was used to create an inflationary cycle that lowered real wages.
It was allowed to get to that point in the first place because the financial sector is allowed to operate in impunity. Obama granted immunity to bankers and continued the pattern of impunity.
Failure to prosecute crimes is a major blow to his legacy and our whole society.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)in order to protect them from having to compete with Canadian drug companies...
Amazing achievement number 29, he protected the obscene profits of the drug companies while Americans are forced to pay inflated prices for their meds....
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)or you choose to ignore it.
TPP negates EVERYTHING. Most of TPP is about Corporate sovereignty (US Corporations and Foreign corporations) over US Federal State and Local Laws. Only 5 chapters of it have to do with Trade. The info is out there in droves - go look for it.
Every law you might hold dear, is subservient to the profits of corporations.
Obama was the Judas Goat.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)There already is caselaw on regulatory taking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_taking but that typically applies to the value of corporate property. It's only a matter of time that corporations try to extend this concept of lost profits from trade deals to US law.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)We've GOT to renegotiate this shit. Because it is shit.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Here's the link - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027738261
Under similar NAFTA provisions, TransCanada is now demanding $15 billion in U.S. taxpayer compensation because our government (rightly) opposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)That explains why we've been a nanny state ever since he was sworn in.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)seeing your family suffer would negate most everything,no?
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)Just the ISDS provisions will serve as the death knell for democracy at the local, state and national level. If you actually look into the 'free trade' agreements, you see this. Did you know, for instance, that the Canadian oil company that's producing out of those tar sands is now suing the US Government based on NAFTA? Did you know that one of the main reasons the Dems didn't ram Medicare for all Americans through in 2009 when we all wanted it was because of service monopoly provisions in GATS? See, all those Dems were beholden to these corporate donors, and so instead of that, we got the ACA which is the Heritage Foundation's super-corporate-welfare program for the insurance industry.
So, yeah, the TPP has every possibility of completely overshadowing any good Obama did. Sadly. Because I like Obama. He's a really good guy and didn't deserve to have his whole presidency negated because he's black, because he HAS done some good stuff. But TPP could very spell the end of whatever little democracy we have left. Make no mistake. TPP is evil when it comes to its effect on the average worker. It really is.
Avalon Sparks
(2,565 posts)TPP is over most Americans heads or people haven't taken the time to understand it.
It's more complicated and much more damaging than the same old wedge issues the majority of Americans base their vote on.
Both parties are giving away the store and cleaning out the cash register.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and run. It's tactic #7.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)What is tactic #7? And, of course, that begs the question of #s 1-6...?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)on the Sanders supporters. #1 is alert, alert, alert I am sure you can guess most of them.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Then I figured out you were serious and then I really laughed. But I like you don't agree with the OP. I don't think the TPP is the worst thing in Obama's legacy.
I think that passing the ACA which gave concessions to the health insurance industry and set back single payer at least a decade is high on the list.
Unilateral killing suspects via drones, designated by the president in sovereign nations where the kill ratio is 110 innocent people including children, killed for every suspect killed. That even makes Cheney grin.
The outright dismissal of torture as just one of those things that happened.
Pardoning (term is not over yet) or at least ignoring the war criminals thereby condoning their actions.
How about the non-empathetic persecution of medical marijuana dispensers while ignoring the crimes of Wall Street.
I know, the normalization of indefinite detention and Patriot Act.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)His refusal to restructure Wall Street
His refusal to prosecute any of the Wall Street thieves and sociopaths
His refusal to prosecute any members of the Bush Junta for war crimes.
Should we have a repeat of 2008, history may curse Obama for refusing to do what FDR did with Wall Street.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)please be specific.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Oh you're right. There was no breach of the AUMF, no violation of the UN Charter, no lies to the American public, no 500k-a million dead, and no torture.
As for Wall Street... you're right again. It's pretty difficult to actually prosecute anyone when Holder/Obama refused to investigate Wall Street's crimes.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I noticed you snark; but, don't answer.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Here ya go, an excerpt from Bernie's speech on the economy. And this is only an excerpt. Check out how much he covers... It's a pretty nice list.
Let me help shatter that myth today.
Since 2009, major financial institutions in this country have been fined $204 billion. $204 billion. And that takes place in a weak regulatory climate.
Here are just a few examples of when major banks were caught doing illegal activity.
In August 2014, Bank of America settled a case with the Department of Justice for more than $16 billion on charges that the bank misled investors about the riskiness of mortgage-backed securities it sold in the run-up to the crisis.
In November of 2013, JP Morgan settled a case for $13 billion with the Department of Justice and the Federal Housing Finance Agency over charges the bank knowingly sold securities made up of low-quality mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In June of 2014, BNP Paribas was sentenced to five years’ probation and was ordered to pay $8.9 billion in penalties by a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan after this bank pled guilty to charges of violating sanctions by conducting business in Sudan, Iran and Cuba.
Let me read you a few headlines and you tell me how it makes sense that not one executive was prosecuted for fraud.
CNN Headline, May 20, 2015: “5 big banks pay $5.4 billion for rigging currencies.” Those banks include JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup.
Headline from the International Business Times (February 24, 2015): “Big Banks Under Investigation For Allegedly Fixing Precious Metals Prices.” The Banks under investigation included Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase.
Headline from The Real News Network (November 26, 2013): “Documents in JPMorgan settlement reveal how every large bank in the U.S. has committed mortgage fraud.”
Headline from The Washington Post (March 14, 2014): “In lawsuit, FDIC accuses 16 big banks of fraud, conspiracy,” which included Bank of America, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase.
Headline from the Guardian (April 2, 2011): “How a big U.S. bank laundered billions from Mexico’s murderous drug gangs.” This article talks about how Wachovia (which was acquired by Wells Fargo) aided Mexican drug cartels in transferring billions of dollars in illegal drug money. Here is what the federal prosecutor (Jeffrey Sloman) said about this: “Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations.”
Yet, the total fine for this offense was less than 2% of the bank’s $12.3 billion profit for 2009 and no one went to jail. No one went to jail.
And, if that’s not bad enough, here’s another one.
Headline: The Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011: “J.P. Morgan Apologizes for Military Foreclosures.” Here is a case where JP Morgan Chase, the largest bank in America, wrecked the finances of 4,000 military families in violation of the Civil Service Members Relief Act, yet no one went to jail.
And, when I say that the business model of Wall Street is fraud that is not just Bernie Sanders talking. That is what financial executives told the University of Notre Dame in a study on the ethics of the financial services industry last year.
According to this study, 51 percent of Wall Street executives making more than $500,000 a year found it likely that their competitors have engaged in unethical or illegal activity in order to gain an edge in the market.
More than one-third of financial executives have either witnessed or have firsthand knowledge of wrongdoing in the workplace.
Nearly one in five financial service professionals believe they must engage in illegal or unethical activity to be successful.
Twenty-five percent of financial executives have signed or been asked to sign a confidentiality agreement that would prohibit reporting illegal or unethical activities to the authorities.
Here’s what one banker from Barclays said in 2010, when he was caught trying to price-fix the $5 trillion-per-day currency market: “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.”
Here’s what an analyst from Standard & Poors said in 2008, “Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters.”
This country can no longer afford to tolerate the culture of fraud and corruption on Wall Street.
Under my administration, Wall Street CEOs will no longer receive a get-out-of jail free card. Big banks will not be too big to fail. Big bankers will not be too big to jail."
pberq
(2,950 posts)I notice there is no response from the poster asking who should be prosecuted.
I would add to this everything William K. Black has said about the subject, especially this one:
http://billmoyers.com/episode/too-big-to-jail/
MOYERS & COMPANY
Too Big to Jail?
October 3, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation last week reminds us of an infuriating fact: No banking executives have been criminally prosecuted for their role in causing the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.
“I blame Holder. I blame Timothy Geithner,” veteran bank regulator William K. Black tells Bill this week. “But they are fulfilling administration policies. The problem definitely comes from the top. And remember, Obama wouldn’t have been president but for the financial contribution of bankers.”
retrowire
(10,345 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I suspect you're an Obama apologist.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Just not good!! If you are not going to prosecute this, what will be prosecuted?
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Yeah what was it, $1.5 billion that just "vaporized"? How does that happen again? I remember watching it unfold at the time and I still have no idea how they got away with it.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Angelo Mozillo, former CEO of Countrywide, for mortgage fraud on an unprecedented scale.
Califonz
(465 posts)and explained how they earned $100 million after they left office. Obama learned much.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)In exchange for pushing the TPP and pardoning Hillary for her email crimes.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)would thus become the American Presidents' foundation, the most powerful and influential "charity" on Earth.
With Hillary's gig at the WH they can dig and dig for the next decade, and with Obama's help and name they can get their
claws deep into Africa and Indonesia and become the shadow world government. Ultimate power! What does it do?
virgista
(48 posts)Now the world is dealing with the consequences--ISIS in Libya, refugees streaming through its ports, a once prosperous nation ruined.
Hillary is reported to have a big role in this.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2016, 08:37 PM - Edit history (3)
countries together. Some people have missed Obama's brilliance all along.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Global trade is only global for goods, and property/intellectual rights. Labor isn't free to move around the world like goods are. Quite the opposite, as we see in Europe right now, people who move for jobs are referred to as "economic refugees" and that is a basis for excluding them. You have agreements making intellectual property rights "global", but you don't have "global" trade unions. Doctors in one country can't go to work in another. Neither can lawyers. But the patent on the drugs prescribed can be nearly global. You can make a movie, and control the world wide rights, but the worlds actors don't all belong to SAG. Each country controls their own labor markets. It isn't free trade, it's free business.
Where's that "brilliance"?
pampango
(24,692 posts)strengthened their working and middle classes at the same time. Many liberals in the US are afraid of promoting global trade and blame it for our problems rather than blaming our regressive tax, anti-union and deregulation policies for them. It is a strange distinction.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Global trade now is anti union and anti worker. It is a free pass for companies to move to areas of cheaper labor.
pampango
(24,692 posts)for the US but for other countries as well. Modern progressive countries treat trade the same way which is why the trade much, much more than the US does AND have strong unions and healthy middle classes.
And FDR (and modern progressive countries) promoted international governance of trade rules so that the US and other countries would not enact unilaterally on trade as his republican predecessors had done.
If FDR had been mainly concerned about the US retaining the dominance of global trade that we had when Europe and Asia were devastated from war, he would have not pushed the idea of many countries sharing in establishing and governing the rules of trade. He would have tried to push to have the US use its dominance to make sure that trade rules were always pro-US by having the US alone govern the rules of trade for as long as possible. That is not what he did.
No. Global trade is not anti-union and anti-worker. If is was, progressive countries that trade much, more than we do would be cesspools of weak unions and poor workers. They are quite the opposite. They know what FDR knew. You support strong unions, adopt high/progressive taxes, regulate business effectively and provide a good safety net and your workers are well off. You don't live in fear of foreigners.
Unfortunately, all economic activity in the US is now "anti union and anti worker" just as it was pre-FDR in the 1920's. Most of our economy (about 77%) has nothing to do with trade. With 'right-to-work', regressive taxes, deregulation and shattered safety nets, all of our economic activity is anti-99%. Blaming the small part of our economy that is trade-related for our problems, plays right into the hands of RW populists and the tea party who hate all international agreements and cooperation.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)Beware of anonymous self-proclaimed "progressive" individuals who pimp corporate-sponsored free trade deals on these forums.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)locally. They also guarantee lost profits from dubious claims and override all our laws, even the Constitution.
You are an lying shill and an disingenuous ass for using FDR in this blatant con-job. Go back to the Repuglicans. I hear they gobble bullshit like this right on up.
pampango
(24,692 posts)more than the US trades?
Do you disagree with my opinion that FDR "promoted global trade and strengthened their working and middle classes at the same time"? Or do you just like to call people names when you don't agree with them?
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)labor laws, etc. which we jettisoned with things like NAFTA and now the TPP.
I am not against trade. I am all for trade, but with the protections we used to have, when FDR was around, BTW. you are conflating FDR, from a very different time with very different, real, working, trade laws and understandings, and also at a time when the US was 100% dominant, to the crap that is going on now. For that, you are a lying shill and an disingenuous ass.
I am not calling you names, I am identifying you and calling your crap out.
pampango
(24,692 posts)their level of imports would be less than ours. In fact progressive countries have a much higher level of imports than does the US.
We "jettisoned" our labor laws long, long before NAFTA, starting with Taft-Hartley with its 'right-to-work' BS in 1949 which republicans passed over Truman's veto on through Reagan's union busting.
Progressive countries now have strong labor laws, high/progressive taxes, effective safety nets and business regulation ("the protections we used to have, when FDR was around"
AND they trade 2 to 3 times as much as we do. IOW they are doing exactly what FDR did, proving to me that FDR 'protections' and FDR 'trade promotion' work in the modern world - just as FDR thought would be the case.
We do not have "the protections we used to have, when FDR was around." To blame that on NAFTA or trade agreements or our trade (relatively small by global standards) in general ignores decades of our history and the fact other countries do not use that excuse. They pass strong labor laws, progressive taxes and effective safety nets AND go about trading with the rest of the world much more than we do even they too are not "dominant".
If definition of "shills" includes people who push for strong labor laws (starting with repealing Taft-Hartley), higher/more progressive taxes, better safety nets, etc then you may "identify" me all you want.
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)but the point it whatever the cause, you also have to treat the symptoms. Pushing Bammie's Baby, the TPP though will not help in any way and will further take us down the rabbit hole of lost sovereignty. Something FDR woudl be strongly opposed to by any measure.
You linking FDR to these programs while trying to shield on his beliefs of strong labor laws, collective bargaining, etc. is what I find despicable about you. You push shit that FDR would never agree with while throwing his name around to make it appear as that is what he would do.
Trade without appropriate protections, tarrifs and consideration of local labor is a disaster.
Better luck next time, shill.
pampango
(24,692 posts)altogether and, without 'appropriate protections' (strong labor laws, progressive taxes, effective business regulation and safety nets, etc.), the result will be the same as it was the last time we tried it under republicans Calvin Coolidge and Hebert Hoover - historic levels of income inequality coexisting with no trade.
To the contrary, I believe I consistently support what FDR stood for - strong labor laws, high/progressive taxes, a strong safety net, effective business regulation AND the value of international trade. You seem to be 'cherry picking' among the FDR policies that you support and those you don't like.
You push shit that FDR would never agree with while throwing his name around to make it appear as that is what he would do.
I am not pushing TPP. I am posting replies about trade and the role it played in FDR's presidency and in modern progressive countries. TPP seems fatally flawed. I doubt it will pass and NAFTA and the WTO will continue to govern trade among these 12 countries. That should make you happy.
FDR did promote trade both with dozens of trade agreements and by proposing the International Trade Organization as a means of taking the governance of international trade out of the hands of national governments and into the hands of an international body that would have used arbitration panels to resolve trade disputes. FDR may well not have supported the TPP. If so it would have been because of the specific rules and regulations it contains, not because he was philosophically opposed to international organizations overriding national sovereignty.
So Obama in "Bammie" in your world?
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)protections were built into it with tariffs. These are gone today with these "agreements" acting as treaties. To claim FDR would be fine with it is asinine.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Are you 'claiming' that FDR did not support the ITO that he himself proposed in 1944?
He inherited high tariffs from his republican predecessors (who raised these tariffs at the request of their corporate backers who wanted to limit foreign competition in their domestic markets), started negotiating them down starting in 1934 then proposed the ITO to make sure they would not come back. He did not look at tariffs as the "protections" that you seem to see them.
He viewed strong labor laws, progressive taxes, strict business regulation and a strong safety net as the 'protections' that the American people needed, not tariffs.
Amazingly that is the same way Scandinavian countries view it today.
I agree with Bernie:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)sold out in the interest of binding countries together.
Once the US has been impoverished (and we are on the way there at a rapid speed) no country will want to be bound to us.
I have long suspected that we are using trade to woo other countries and "bind" them to us. It will not work. America will just be weakened by this approach.
It is not a brilliant strategy, not brilliant at all.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The United States thinks it is helping others and in reality is facilitating a few very wealthy Americans to run over people in other countries.
These trade agreements do not really help the people in other countries.
These trade agreements have little to do with trade. We can trade with other countries, buy their products for what they are worth in a fair market, without these trade agreements.
These trade agreements are just one big corporate coup taking place worldwide.
The choice is not either trade agreements or America first.
The choice is either trade agreements or democracy and Americans governing themselves.
The trade agreements are a way to get around our American self-government and democracy. They are a way of destroying local government decisions and putting the trade courts above the American people.
That's why I don't want the trade agreements.
And yes. I am in America. Someone in India wants India first. I am in America and I want America first because this is where I live and it comes first for me. Doesn't mean that other countries have to suffer. Just means that I clean my own house first. I take care of my own environment first. Then I can tell others what they should do and help them. But if my own country is a mess why should I tell other countries what to do?
The other countries I have lived in put their countries first too. There is nothing wrong with that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)making of the laws that govern him or her and cooperation between nations is difficult.
The trade agreements we now have and that are being contemplated do not find that balance in my opinion. They are being written by business interests. There is nothing wrong with business and there is nothing wrong with the fact that businesses have interests. But there is something very wrong when corporations and business interests make trade agreements that grant to them and their interests the authority to overrule democratically determined laws and usurp democracies.
So that is my problem with the trade agreements.
For example, corporations can hire people in any country they want according to the labor laws of that country. In poor countries, they can heavy handidly impose lax labor regulations and in that way also lax environmental regulations on those countries and their working people.
But people in the so-called "wealthy" countries that have labor standards that protect not only the people who work but also the environment in which they work and live cannot go to any country they want and live and work in the environment, safety conditions and other conditions that they have democratically imposed in their countries or in their workplaces.
So the trade agreements challenge and destroy our system of worker protections beginning with the definition of the workweek as normally 40 hours to the OSHA regulations to Workman's Compensation and right on down to the minimum wage. They do that in a most undemocratic way.
And that is why I do not like the trade agreements.
A person in India can make service representative calls to the US and thus take jobs that serve Americans and could be performed by Americans. That is detrimental to American workers because the person in India is not competing for American wages. That drives wages in America down or alternatively drives unemployment up.
And I do not for one minute believe the official statistics on employment in the US. I doubt that many people do because we just meet too many people who are unemployed. Sometimes anecdotal information is misleading. And sometimes it is more reliable than the official, doctored statistics.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)How about all the trade agreements the European Union has?
I do not believe you can show one instance where a trade agreement or any other agreement with a foreign country has impacted our OSHA rules, Fair Labor Standards (such as 40 our work week), etc.-- talking about anecdotal information.
Further the most recent trade agreements put pressure on foreign countries to move toward our labor and environmental standard, as so supplemental agreements like the Paris Accord. Maybe it won't move them toward our standards immediately, but it took us decades, perhaps centuries, to get here.
I remember how many unions were quite racist in their membership rules in the 60s/70s/etc. Some probably still are. I also remember how minorities in this country were viewed by a lot of working class as a threat to their wages. I think it is still that way for many. Many more now take the same view of foreign workers who would just like a piece of the pie. And I believe their getting a decent job is the key to our middle class.
Jackilope
(819 posts)Knowing this is an incredibly bad deal, what or who is the force behind his promoting it? Wordering what the story is behind this.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and that is all that matters.
It single-handedly nullifies every single other thing he's done that thoroughly sucks.
Abundant Cash Allowed Premium gift to health insurance.. as much as it helped people it helped the insurance industry more and did nothing at all to control actual health costs..
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)"It's a foot in the door, and it will be expanded into single payer eventually." When I tell him that the whittling down of the ACA began as soon as it was signed, and continues to this day, he just says "Well, I don't know about any of THAT..." and considers the argument won.
With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)But it is not really set up to be a stepping stone, most of it will have to be re-written in order for it to get there. That is alright but since he/they never really put up any sort of fight to make it better or get it closer he lost my confidence right then and there.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)more profits for Healthcare insurers
and as previously stated - Obama put Social Security on the chopping block for fuck sake. It doesn't get any more republican then that.
And anyone who wants to pipe up and try to tell me that Obama did that because he is a ninja, black belt, 3-d chess master can bark at the fucking moon. 
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)A lot closer to an R than a D in my book... the transparency tha he promised never took place , in fact actually got darker, he had/has control of justice and let that keep away from doing anything of any consequence on the glaring war crimes that were actually admitted to which actually makes him guilty of malfeasance... I had already lost faith before he put SS up like he did ..
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They get a 30% cut of every insurance dollar spent....and with the ACA everyone in the US will have to buy.
That is a wet dream for the greedy...to have the government mandate everyone give you money.
scottie10
(101 posts)I defended the affordable care act and I know many people benefit from it. It just seems that the people I talk to hate it.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)It does help many people that needed it but it does much more for health insurance companies than most people want to admit...and does way way less in fact nothing much at all to help actually lower costs of health care itself, that is not what anyone had in mind and that is why it has the"affordable"attached to it's name.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)that the destruction of Libya is to be condoned? How about the 217% increase in military operations in Africa? What about indefinite detention? What about claiming the authority to assassinate enemies of the state without due process? What about the TPP?
Stack all of that up - does the ACA neutralize all of it?
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)it the least.
Any truly progressive actions he took didn't cost his rich friends or the Republicans a dime. Leaving a used lamp at the end of your driveway with a "free" sign on it isn't an altruistic act if you were going to throw it away anyway.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)nah, couldn't be
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)because for all the good it'll do working class Americans, they may benefit more by using it to wipe their a** with instead
scottie55
(1,400 posts)I supported every single action taken by PBO, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Till TPP.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)us Dems are too used to saying "whatever the Dem backs, we back"
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)that we have to vote for the lesser of two evlis tends to soften opposition to a lot of things over time. Like Oh well...we know better but why bother?
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)What you said.
But what really burns my ass is that his harshest invective, and quite visceral at that, was his tantrum aimed not at the republicans who obstructed him since day 1 ( and indeed, this TPP issue was the only one they actually agreed with the president on....curious, aint it? ) but at the populists of his own damn base who opposed the agreement.
"With friends like thse..............................."
Really, I would, and do feel the same way about any politician that supports more of these sham free-trade agreements. The record is clear.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and it'll undermine his legacy in more ways than one http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/05/3709061/tpp-agreement-reached-environmental-concerns-remain/
SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)Is probably the single most ridiculous thread I have ever seen here. I'm sure things would be much better if McCain/Palin/Romney had been in charge.
scottie55
(1,400 posts)TPP will destroy Obama's legcacy.
BigBearJohn
(11,410 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is much shorter than it wanted, tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Rs in general are mad because the labor protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things from my point of view. I’ll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer.
But it’s interesting that what we’re seeing so far is a harsh backlash from the right against these improvements. I find myself thinking of Grossman and Helpman’s work on the political economy of free trade agreements, in which they conclude, based on a highly stylized but nonetheless interesting model of special interest politics, that:
An FTA is most likely to politically viable exactly when it would be socially harmful.
The TPP looks better than it did, which infuriates much of Congress.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/tpp-take-two/
TM99
(8,352 posts)Krugman is a neoliberal who got his Nobel on free trade.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)actually discuss real policy differences and distinctions with a Clinton supporter. For y'all it is all team sports, cults of personality, and childish insults and attacks.
Krugman adheres to a neoliberal political economy theory. Look it up as it is actually a 'thing'. His Nobel prize was awarded for his writings on the economics of free trade, a big component of neoliberalism.
These two things describe why his perspective is reflective of his professional and philosophical backgrounds. He is quite intelligent, but there are many economists just as bright who disagree with the philosophical foundations of free trade.
So when you post that Krugman thinks everything is cool with the TPP, it is fair to point out that, of course he does. He comes from the same school of thought as Obama, who is an admitted New Dem, i.e. also an adherent of neoliberalism.
Traditional FDR progressives come from a different economic & political philosophy background, and we strongly believe that neoliberalism as evidenced by Democratic and Republican administrations since the 1980's have possibly irreparably harmed this nation and its citizens beyond repair. We see free trade as benefiting corporate elites as opposed to every day citizens no matter which countries are involved. We have no problem with global trade. We simply prefer the fair trade practices of decades ago over the NAFTA, TPP, free trade clusterfucks of today.
Bluntly, I don't know why I am even wasting time giving you a cogent response to your banal reply. Why should any of us continue to throw pearls before swine?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)of the common man" is not just a little hyperbolic, in your opinion?
TM99
(8,352 posts)in the 20th century, and the damage estimates are still not complete.
So, no it is not hyperbolic to say that the TPP, which is far worse than NAFTA, will have disastrous effects on our future lives and those of our children.
And as usual, you address nothing that was actually directed at you in the way of communication given your initial response to me which was less than adult.
snot
(10,520 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)For it to be the single most ridiculous thing I've read on DU tonight.
ancianita
(36,030 posts)the last three hundred years of globalism.
I've finally been exposed to a perspective that the 1%, due to their private schooling with its attendant primary documents-style education, believe.
Read, also, Gore Vidal's "Burr," (at least to page 100) to see how the intention of this country's founders wasn't what our patriotic history texts told us it was.
Of course, we can force the issue of control over corporations, but we must remember that corporations pre-date the founding of this so-called democratic state.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
lexington filly
(239 posts)but I personally believe that this "all or nothing" type of thinking is not only unproductive but damaging. I'm opposed to this trade treaty---strongly opposed. But why attack the man rather than the specific harms you fear may very well result from TPP?
I've opposed some of Obama's policies but I've never doubted his integrity and honesty and I see absolutely no reason to do so in this instance. Simply put, I feel in my bones he's a good man. And coming from me---a cynical observer of both current and historical events---that's something. I've wished he were much more left and that he'd had the powers of a superhero because that's what it would have taken to make me personally a completely happy progressive. But I'm glad Obama has been a man I can completely respect and admire.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)so you can't untether BHO from that any more than you can from anything else he chooses to do -- like killing innocents with drones, etc.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Mostly because he has made it his, it is something that he has pushed and backed all the way, more than anything else he tried to do,he fought harder to get that passed than he did in any attempt to get a public option, on that one he folded so fast on was pathetic to see...
Omaha Steve
(99,597 posts)OS
BeyondGeography
(39,369 posts)Thanks.
Paladin
(28,254 posts)But I'm sure you were aware of that.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)... the Affordable Care Act will cover a little bit of the damage when it comes ...
... with all those uninspected goodies coming from countries that have no standards whatsoever ...
... hell, we're barely inspecting what we slop into our ports as it is ...
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)I never trusted. Sanders people: they don't know how to
Work as, a team: Sanders people are about themselves. not the
welfare of all Americans
Sanders has no business being head of the Dem's: if he is going
Bash Obama:
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)What's the point of passing equal pay laws if a foreign company can sue us to lower them to their standards? I feel like TPP will undo everything that he's managed to pass.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)His "progressive" campaign of 2008 is now recognized as a fraud, a gigantic lie.
His immediate ("I'll take it from here" exclusion of the American people from carrying on the progressive fight direct to Congress after his election resulted in the total collapse of Democratic Party power in congress. He consequently brought the GOP obstruction upon himself.
His ObamaCare turned out to be a sellout to the insurance companies. More coverage but with the same amount of financial rip-off.
His Supreme Court nominee not only favors Citizens United decision but has also stated that it "did not go far enough".
He has heavily endorsed Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, the chairman of the DNC who is the ringleader for rigging the entire Democratic Party Establishment to nominate Hillary Clinton and who supports laws that favor payday lenders in screwing millions of American workers.
He now issues executive orders to help various causes that could have been issued SEVEN YEARS AGO.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)The TPP is the final stake.. Why bother passing legislation that protects the consumer and the environment on the local, state and federal level when it can be challenged by some corporate lawyer tribunal if they feel their right to pursue profits is inhibited..
Phlem
(6,323 posts)OBAMA = TPP
HILLARY = Contributor to the TPP and future facilitator of the decimation of the middle class.
The Thirdway's greatest gift to America.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)
Matilda
(6,384 posts)It's all the leaders of all the countries who are signatories, including Australia.
Our leaders have sold us out to the big multinationals, and my question is why? I've heard that they're positioning themselves to build a stronger alliance against the rising power of China, but I don't understand how this works.
I do know that we have all become more vulnerable – seems if we do anything that's against the financial interests of the big corporations, our politicians will bow and scrape to them, and not give a damn about their country or the welfare of the citizens.
And it will take no account of environmental concerns, or degradation of land or sea, nothing will matter except the power of the multinationals to keep making obscene profits.
And this applies to pollies of all stripes – it's not left or right; it's all of them.
Does anyone understand why?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)they will say i am racist
earthshine
(1,642 posts)Generally Obama makes logical arguments for the things he wishes to accomplish.
But not here.
Watch him burn his political capital as he tries to be convincing by saying just take my word for it.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
B Calm
(28,762 posts)like they did with NAFTA.
pampango
(24,692 posts)to be undermined.
It would appear that Donald will 'rip up' every trade (and other) international agreement and take us back to the pre-FDR days of Coolidge and Hoover when national sovereignty was paramount and international cooperation was nonexistent.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)Also, say goodbye to minimum wage increases by State and Local governments. All a corporation will do is declare that a raise in minimum wages will adversely effect their profits. How many State and Local governments can afford such a fight by corporations using the TPP ISDS dispute resolution process designed by and for multi-national corporations? You will now have corporations able to use this dispute resolution process to sue all levels and forms of governments. They can also just threaten to use said process which will "discourage" defenders due to the legal costa etc..Does this sound like giving up governmental sovereignty for corporate profits? Follow the money.....
FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)leaving office. I am sure he has even better plans!!! He has two kids to take care of, not just one!!
How The Clintons Have Made $230 Million Since Leaving The White House
Less than a week before the Clintons left the White House in 2001... a couple who had more than $1 million in legal debt and a net worth of nearly nothing at the time. ... Over the next 15 years, they earned more than $230 million before taxes.
The money flowed in fast. Bill delivered the first of hundreds of high-paying speeches on February 5, 2001, less than three weeks after he left the presidency, talking to Morgan Stanley in New York for $125,000. The firm got a bargain. Bill eventually raised his average rate to roughly $225,000 per speech, in some cases charging $500,000, ... All told, he raked in about $100 million from speaking from 2001 to 2014.
:
:
Hillary didn’t bring in the sort of money her husband did until 2013, when she left her post as Secretary of State. She quickly jumped into a lucrative speaking tour, starting, as Bill had 12 years earlier, by giving a speech to Morgan Stanley. On April 18, 2013, she spoke to the firm and charged $225,000. She continued speaking throughout the year, talking exclusively to audiences in the United States and Canada, never charging less than $225,000 for a paid speech. By the end of the year, she had earned $9 million from speaking.
Don't doubt for a moment that Obama won't be cashing in as well. To do that, he needs to keep the current Democratic "establishment" power structures in place. This is regardless of who wins the Presidency, Hillary or some R. Otherwise, all bets are off the table.
TPP goes a long way to securing our "owners" control over all of us, this country and its future!
Thanks, Obama!!
Loki
(3,825 posts)You would have done sooooooo much better with Mitt Romney as president with a republican house and senate. Yeah right. These republican talking points are not becoming of any person on this board, especially a Bernie or a Hillary supporter. Make your argument about what Bernie has done and what he will do, don't do the repukes job for them.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Brought to you by those who would divide the Democratic Party, and are therefore GOP enablers.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The trial balloon was too soon, the owners realize the workers are not ready yet.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Either his support of TPP represents a secret deal with Elite$, or actually represents
core economic values Obama believes in regarding world trade.
Either one, sucks.
lark
(23,094 posts)This has the potential to really mess us up financially and environmentally for ages to come and all for the enrichment of the 1% and to the detriment of everyone else. This is bigger than ACA, his other signature accomplishment. Also, letting some of the Bush tax cuts for the rich stand was also messed up. Libya and Syria are also low water marks for him internationally. People complain about Clinton, he was her boss and she did what he asked. They are very similar in many ways. People that love him and hate Clinton are not being intellectually honest.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Rahm and Clinton and the banksters misled me" spiel
Iggo
(47,550 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)His legacy was solidified the day he was inaugurated. He'll be remember for being the first "minority" president. Everything else will ebb and flow with time. Washington enforced the whiskey tax. You don't see the anti-tax crowd remembering him for that do ya?
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)it's in the best interest of the country and the people.
I've heard him make his arguments for the deal and I think his intentions are good.
I happen to oppose the deal for a number of reasons, including strong ethical reasons.
But, no one is perfect. I'll miss him when he's gone.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)I immediately think, "Yeah, sure you are"; because the internet is just teeming with people who freely and without any reservation force themselves to type statements which cause them to feel deep sorrow and regret.
