To enable them to extract more wealth for the wealthy by giving them access to the cheapest labour, the least restrictive environmental and safety regulations, and the most possible clients who will pay them more than their product is worth.

Any benefits to the general populace is strictly coincidental, and probably temporary.

Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934

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.

After the Civil War, Democrats were generally the party of trade liberalization, while Republicans were generally for higher tariffs. The RTAA marked a sharp departure from the era of protectionism in the United States. American duties on foreign products declined from an average of 46% in 1934 to 12% by 1962.

The administration decided to take advantage of having a Democratic-controlled Congress and Presidency to push through the RTAA. ... In 1936 and 1940, the Republican Party ran on a platform of repealing the tariff reductions secured under the RTAA.

How RTAA changed the world

As American duties dropped off dramatically, global markets also increasingly liberalized. World trade expanded at a rapid pace. The RTAA, though a law of the United States, provided the first widespread system of guidelines for bilateral trade agreements. The United States and the European nations began avoiding beggar thy neighbour policies (which pursued national trade objectives at the expense of other nations). Instead, countries started to realize the gains from trade cooperation.

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

The ITO:

The original intention was to create a third institution to handle the trade side of international economic cooperation, joining the two “Bretton Woods” institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Over 50 countries participated in negotiations to create an International Trade Organization (ITO) as a specialized agency of the United Nations. The ITO Charter was ambitious. It extended beyond world trade disciplines, to include rules on employment, commodity agreements, restrictive business practices, international investment, and services. The aim was to create the ITO at a UN Conference on Trade and Employment in Havana, Cuba in 1947.

The Havana conference began on 21 November 1947, less than a month after GATT was signed. The ITO Charter was finally agreed in Havana in March 1948, but ratification in some national legislatures proved impossible. The most serious opposition was in the US Congress, even though the US government had been one of the driving forces. In 1950, the United States government announced that it would not seek Congressional ratification of the Havana Charter, and the ITO was effectively dead.

https://www.wto.org/English/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact4_e.htm

Old Wooden Choppers himself.

Presidents in US history and DU's New Democrat defenders rarely miss an opportunity to throw him under the bus.

4 Presidential wins, including one when he was all but dead and 40 years of coat tails. what a fucking loser!



And, while he may have inherited tariffs from Republicans, Bubba inherited NAFTA from Poppy Bush. Where Bush failed to pass it, Bubba succeeded.

Of course FDR had passed away by then but in film he bore a striking resemblance to my grandfather.

If it did, Congress could just yank the 5 sections about dinking around with tariffs and reject the other 24 sections, which are about nothing other than establishing corporate dictatorship over elected governments.

FDR's legislation was about bilateral trade agreements only.

And obviously the TPP has "something to do with trade" though it is not solely about trade.

His RTAA was about bilateral trade agreements. It was used as a foundation for the development of GATT. His International Trade Organization was not bilateral in nature but involved many countries and was quite comprehensive including provisions on labor rights, commodity agreements, business regulation, international investment and services. So it was not "solely about trade either".

actual discussion and IMO he failed miserably. So why do people in DU disparage those here that oppose the TPP and FT?
I see only two possible reason and would love to hear more.

1. Being brought up in the last 40 years in the good ole USofA one has been subjected to a very strong authoritarian standard. At an early age one learns to obey authority without question. It gets reinforced in our schools, sports, youth groups, and the military. We lack liberal education that teaches us to have open minds and be skeptical, especially of those in authority. These people make up a lot of the Republicon base. They love the strong authoritarian Republicon leaders. But some Democrats are very conservative and also want to believe their leaders will take good care of them with no questions asked.

2. There are apparently some Democrats that secretly believe in Trickle-Down. They believe that the wealthy are successful and that they therefor should have the power, in spite of democratic principles. They are willing to give up their freedoms and liberties to those that are financially elite.

People have invested themselves emotionally, physically, and mentally in the success of the leadership of the Democratic Party and simply don't want the world to be otherwise.

There are also a lot of people who are too scared to admit that our system is fundamentally broken, and understandably so. They will continue to blindly trust and support the Democratic Party for lack of courage to change something. This is why the "The Republicans are worse" argument is so infuriatingly effective at ginning up support for them.

Like our founders. Some try to delay that decision indefinitely.

Obama is for it, therefore it must be great. No other thinking required, just regurgitation of White House Talking Points.

I suppose this is a subset of your first point, but I don't think these particular folks are 'conservative'. They just have completely bought into Obama.

I would put it differently. I would say that some Democrats know perfectly well that trickle down is bullshit and trickle down is just fine with them because they know it's bullshit.

Same ones who claim liberals just can't get elected--but Hillary is liberal and not only can be elected anyway, but is the only one who can get elected.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

IOW, the same ones whose posts are not consistent with provable facts or especially internally consistent, either.

Is the US Chamber of Commerce for it? If so, it hurts working people and enriches big business at their expense.

sort of immature. If so and so is for it, I'm against it, without thinking it through for myself. That's number one.

Who speaks for "Wall Street?" How do you know what "Wall Street" is for?

The first question we should ask is what is in it. When we see that, we have a reason to have an opinion.

Progressives all know what Wall Street is all about and it has nothing to do with helping the 99%. In fact their goal of gaining wealth often finds them stealing wealth from the lower classes.

I don't have to know what's in it to know that it isn't good for the 99%. If it was, someone would be telling us but NO ONE has come out with any evidence to show that it isn't a piece of crap. Blind faith is a very dangerous thing.

Being against a thing just because "the Republicans" are for it is not thinking for yourself either. In fact it is letting the Republicans do your thinking for you by default.

Last edited Thu Apr 23, 2015, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I think it's a very good rule of thumb to be against whatever they favor. We don't need to be calling people "immature" to make our points.

And I'm not going to relax until we get our democracy back, thank you.

want without thought for what is politically necessary and expedient.

on the topic of Climate Change or evolution? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/jon-huntsman-believes-in-evolution-and-global-warming-but-can-he-win-a-republican-primary/2011/08/18/gIQAIyuBOJ_blog.html

What about that far, far rightwing, Barry Goldwater guy that said this:

that so many ascribe to this mindless, "They are for it; so, I'm against it" narrative.

It really is silly ... especially when the "gop, the chambers of commerces, and the corporations are for it; so, I must be against it" narrative is just as easily, and factually, put, "The gop base is against the TPP and Fast-Track, so I must be for them."

...especially considering how the Republicans have been operating over the last several decades.

They don't give one inch. Neither should we.

to do what's best. Isn't that just a tad hypocritical?

merely because "the Republicans" are for it. If I subscribed to that, I'd have to be against having an army, since the Republicans are for it. No thinking, just oppose it because the Republicans want it. Not because I actually oppose it on my own.

I'm not for it just because the President is for it. I'm neither for or against it, because I don't know what's in it. But the President being for it has more influence with me than the mere fact of (some majority I suppose) of Republicans are for it.

the TPP. We know a lot about it. First of all it's a frackin' Trade Agreement that appears to have lots of riders attached to eliminate our liberties and freedoms. Those pieces that have been leaked are not the final but odds are they are very close. We've seen other "Trade Agreements" and they aren't pretty. Some very good people are firmly against it and have come out with concrete reasons. NO ONE has come out in favor to give us even a possibility that it's going to help the 99% in lieu of the corporation profits.

I trust Sen Sanders and Sen Warren and I don't trust Mitch McConnell.

In addition, if the Republicons are for it, I'm against it and I bet the odds are with me.

but relax

...only a fool (and I mean that in the truest sense of the word) would sign into the measure without asking themselves some very serious questions.

"Mature"? I would have used a different word.

Reps in Congress have been doing for several years now.

And the response has been 'no, you don't get to see what's in it'.

Since when does Congress NOT have the right, by the authority given to them by the people, to negotiate legislation in this country?

Could you pin point for us, when Congress lost that power, when was it transferred to the Executive Branch? Was there a Conitutitional Amendment? Because that is what it would take to hand over the power of one Branch of Government to another?

The answer is NO, and that is the reason why the President is pushing Fast Tracking this Secret Deal, to try to get Congress to give up their authority.

Bush tried it also. He failed because even Republicans saw the ramifications of such a surrendering of the power of any Branch of Government.

So Congress won't see it until it's too late for them to make any changes, IF they are stupid enough to Fast Track this abominable giveaway to Global Corporations.

No one should be willing to blindly follow any politician, not even if it is their own mother, to make such a terrible mistake for this country.

For something that is supposed be so "secret", there seems to be a lot of "leaks" that have come out and the same old crowd that "always" runs around with their hair on fire, are buying into the rumors, and can't wait see the end results before once again setting their hair on fire. When nobody can identify the "leakers", I feel much more comfortable in waiting to see the final results instead of jumping all over the president. I trust him more than some anonymous leaker.

mean we don't know what's in it. We know that it's a Trade Agreement. That alone is enough to have us worried. No one has explained how any such agreement can benefit the 99%. So with out ever seeing it we need to be skeptical. Skepticism is a friend of those that are politically liberal and blind trust isn't. Blind trust is a conservative tool used by strong authoritarians.

We have seen good long sections of the document via leakers. Now I hope you don't try to tell us that the leakers fabricated the documents? From the documents we've seen we can tell the direction these secret negotiations are going and it sure ain't in our favor. Some use the lame argument that the leaked documents aren't final. Oh Plez. They have been working on these document for years. The leaked documents may not be final, but most likely pretty damn close. A large number of qualified people believe that the final document will be a disaster for the 99%. NO ONE has come out with a single reason to believe otherwise. Your complete argument is that we should wait until the train actually runs over us before we worry about standing on the tracks.

Climate Change deniers don't have a leg to stand on and neither do those that deny that we should be skeptical about the TPP being Fast Tracked right up our aspects.

I pretty much feel the same about all those who think some "leaker" who remains anonymous, is more reliable than the president, but then again some just think that everything the president says or does is wrong no matter what.

Remember this is the same Pres that has soft pedaled torture, and embraces the Patriot Act. Same Pres that shrugs at the most powerful NSA/CIA Security State and their unregulated domestic spying on all Americans.

To question all that has been leaked means you are suggesting that the leakers have fabricated the documents they've leaked. Who would benefit from that?

No one has come out to tell us that the TPP will help the 99%. Lots of people have come out against it. Good people like Sen Sanders and Sen Warren.

Your blind trust in the President is misplaced.

1. Do you like working an 8-hour workday?

2. Do you like being paid time and a half for overtime?

3. Do you like to have lunch and bathroom breaks?

4. Do you like family leave time?

5. Do you like being able to retire?

If any of these laws would cause a corporation to lose expected revenue, they could sue our government. Then we could all be debt slaves for the rest of our lives.

In the "who's side are you really on?" sense.

Your 3rd denial reason is valid as well, and seems to be the weapon of choice for most pro-TPP supporters on DU.

If this bill is such a good thing for the poor and middle class Mr. President, who represented OUR interests at the negotiating table?

Would it be Okay to see what's actually in it before deciding whether I'm for it or against it?

Just sayin'.

We may not know the details about exactly how bad it is, but we know it's bad. No one has made the least suggestion that this document may be good for the 99% except those that believe anything good for corporations is good for the paupers (Trickle-Down). Those that don't see the train coming, it's because they have their eyes closed.

We do know the details with respect to Climate Change science.

the track.

in detail.

Most Progressives like Sen Sanders and Sen Warren are opposed to it. So are environmental groups and unions. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026556106

So who is pushing this so-called Agreement? Pres Obama, candidate Clinton, Mitch McConnell and the Repubs, and major corporations.

Boehner, McConnell and the rest of the republican congress deciding what part of the cargo stays on the train, what gets tossed and what gets replaced with cargo they like better.

I don't know that they are for it. At least some polls strongly suggest otherwise.

Climate Change deniers refuse to accept the published studies ... I refuse to accept speculation.

Just because someone closes their eyes and claims they can't see the danger, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Blind Faith isn't very politically liberal.

you should be a little fearful when another "Free" Trade Agreement is coming up.

The parts I've seen so far scare the hell out of me. And I don't trust big corporations to look out after the 99%.

especially, when I am reasonably sure, the unknown will be revealed.

closing ones eyes.

is, now, a bad thing?

.. have seen what's in it and they like it. That's enough for me.

And also while I am here, calling it a "trade agreement" is absurd. It is way, way way more than that.

Anything that the pukes and the tenth-percenters want THIS much should be avoided like a ship full of plague rats.

Why people cannot see thi simple truth is beyond me.

Mitch McConnell.

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

The answer is no. Even the President, in his interview with Chris Matthew, danced around the issue essentially begging us to just trust him. Sorry, until I see the details, all the details and there is an open debate about them, I'm going to say this will not benefit anyone who must go or ever has had to go to a job every day at all. It might even do grievous harm so we need the details, all of them first.

totalitarian government. In a constitutionally controlled democratic republic, we must be vigilant and hold our representatives accountable.

He was in the middle of an interview with Bernie Sanders about the trade agreement when they broke into a live speech by President Obama about the trade agreement. Obama mentioned MSNBC criticizing the agreement. Afterwards, Bernie said he was talking about Ed because nobody else has been talking about it in detail like Ed. Ed threw down the gauntlet and said he wants a sit down interview with the President because he really has questions for him. Although Chris Matthews wasn't named. That was whom they were talking about.

Bernie also made the point that all the markets in Asia he's talking about won't create the jobs promised here because the markets to buy goods in China will be made in China. Wall Street may benefit but the working class in America won't.

It was something to behold. I hope one of our techie DUers posts the whole segment up.

the answer to the question that you asked was closer to what President Obama ... before you added the period, the "Sorry", and the "I".

it all wonderful. I think you got the gist.

your gist was that President Obama is merely saying "trust me."

That is not what he has said ... the far closer statement would be: "You'll like it, just wait and see."

Again the mobile device makes splitting semantic hairs less possible.

Not saying they are always right on everything, but I agree with them very often.

F4lconF16, your dad is right on!

Wall Street and Republicans are for it because it will help wealthy people and corporations. There's no mystery there. Obama is for it because he thinks it will help the 99%. The question is whether he is right.

Obama saying trust me, others say trust him but no one telling us anything about it or letting us see it and decide for ourselves. That's how you talk to children. We aren't children. Show us, that would be the democratic way..show us, let us see it and talk about it then decide for our adult selves what we think and if we want it. The truth is they are infantilizing us and we're fools if we let them continue to do it.

The truth is they don't give a flip what we think or want.

Every time I read, "call your Senators, quick!" I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Once you give up the blinders it's very obvious that this is the last blow to our democracy...I don't think there will be much left. I find myself wondering if the killings by police aren't also just a taste of what we can expect...it's so obvious, so in our face...it's like we're being laughed at and slapped in the face with a "what are you gonna do about it"....

We have lost our industry, jobs, freedom, any sense of security or having any sense of control much less a voice...now they talk to us like retarded children.

They don't give one whit what we think...

I don't necessarily always agree with the guy, but he's definitely a Senate Heavyweight.

I'm wondering why Ron Wyden supports the thing.

And pejorative.

but unfortunately, it is a very profound truth.
Republicans tell approximately 4 million lies befor they ever do one thing to benefit the average American citizen.*

*not a scientific study (we are still waiting for their first altruistic act) but based on observation

Because that's the alternative.

I will fight like hell to keep that from happening.

And with all due respect for you and your dad, and clearly a shared loathing for Republicans and economic disparities, I am constitutionally incapable of asking only two question regarding trade agreements

https://ustr.gov/tpp

The USTR does a rah rah job on CAFTA as well here.