General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPew Research, May 27: "Free Trade Agreements Seen as Good for U.S."
By a margin of 58 percent to 33 percent, Americans believe that free trade is good for the nation. Such sentiment is particularly strong among Hispanics (71 percent) and 18-to-29 year olds (69 percent). Support for the principle of free trade is broadly shared across gender, race, age, income, education, and party divisions. And its not a new phenomenon. Numerous Pew Research surveys over the years have found that most Americans think that global trade and economic engagement is good for the country.
Most Democrats favor free trade:
Notably, there are only modest partisan differences in views of the impact of free trade agreements on the country and peoples personal finances. About six-in-ten independents (62%) and Democrats (58%) say free trade agreements have been good for the U.S., as do 53% of Republicans. Nearly half of independents (47%), 42% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans say their familys finances have been helped by free trade agreements.
More Positive Views of Financial Impact of Trade Deals Than in 2010, 2009:
The new survey finds that overall views about whether trade agreements are good for the U.S. are 10 percentage points higher than in 2011 (58% now, 48% then).
Moreover, the share of Americans who say their finances have been helped by free trade agreements has risen since 2010. At that time, negative impressions of the financial impact of trade deals outnumbered positive ones by 20 points (46% to 26%). Today, 43% take a positive view of the financial impact of free trade agreements, up 17 points since 2010, while 36% take a negative view (down 10 points).
more: http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/27/free-trade-agreements-seen-as-good-for-u-s-but-concerns-persist/
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)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.).
.....................
Coulda told 'em that in January
treestar
(82,383 posts)bring on a socialist America is delusional. The average voter just doesn't care. They are not scared of the TPP.
djean111
(14,255 posts)We are told it doesn't exist as yet, then are told it will be swell! and then are told that yeah, it will hurt Americans but that is what we deserve.
I believe we have reached the point where all of the proselytizing about the TPP has zero effect on those of us who do not like it. And it is not like we can stop it, really. Is the threat of not supporting those Dems who vote yes on it that frightening? Is there some sort of job assignment that says everyone at DU must love the TPP? I am no longer foaming at the mouth about it, I will just very calmly never vote for any Dem who votes yes on it. Or any Dem who shilled for it and helped put it together. That is irreversible.
But to say that some of us should just happily accept it because a great number of Americans either don't know or don't care about it is ridiculous. I do not base my decisions on polls. Ever. Especially polls from people who don';t know or don't care. How ridiculous is that, really. We don't have GroupThink as yet.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and declare it is going to ruin America, etc. That anyone who supports it is a corporatist lover of Wall Street, both of which seem to be decidedly required to be accepted as evil and out to get us all.
But I just don't think it's going to be the doom of America. This country seems to be pretty rich, strong and free for the most part. I just don't believe that even the Republicans would deliberately tear it down or that they could do so by means of a free trade agreement.
djean111
(14,255 posts)yes or support it or helped write it. Final answer, for me.
Just for starters, how can extending the length of time that generics cannot be produced be good for anyone but Big Pharma? And it looks like signatory countries will be barred from negotiating drug prices. Wow, what a swell way to do things.
This looks to be a big giveaway to global corporations. That will not turn out well, methinks. Guess we will see when Fast Track is passed. Until then, cheery generalities about That Which Cannot Be Seen fall pretty uselessly flat.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I assume you have a concrete citation, ad opposed to some site pandering for readership by writing "TPP could, potentially, in our most exaggerated fear mongering result in . . . . . . .bad outcome."
The big problem with drugs internationally is some countries don't recognize any patents and condone drug counterfeiting. Mist poor countries pay a lot less than we do for patent drugs, and drug makers give a lot away.
With all that said, I think our laws should limit how long companies can essentially recover research cost in determining drug prices. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)You don't get it, or maybe you do which would be worse. Our laws cease to have any meaning once this corporate trade policy aka TPP goes into effect. Conflicts like the one you described will be settled by international tribunals accountable to no one but the global corporate cartel that owns them. How any American can be in support of this blows the mind.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)have been in place in some 2500 trade agreements since 1959. I bet you don't even know how the tribunal judges are selected.
Even the EU -- and Bernie Sanders' favorite Scandinavian countries -- have used these tribunals.
Most telling is that countries are still clamoring to sign agreements with the dispute mechanism in them. I guess you are one of those that think every country in the world who signs these agreements have been bought off by so-called "global corporate cartels."
Joe Turner
(930 posts)U.S. laws and regulations in areas like food, drugs, patents? Is that your spin? That's a big chunk of that agreement pal. All the spinning in the world will not change it. It was and is why this agreement has been kept under secrecy. BTW, the Scandinavian countries run trade surpluses, especially with the U.S. You know why? It's because they, unlike America, don't let their corporations run them around by their nose.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)actually discriminates against a foreign company by applying different rules to the foreign companies than they apply to domestic companies. That is clearly a violation of international law and should go to a tribunal for adjudication. We've come out pretty good in tribunal hearings.
However you cut it, Scandinavian countries gladly sign these agreements, Pal. Apparently the "progressive" governments there have more sense than many here.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)The issue is TPP giving the power to corporations foreign or domestic to supersede U.S. rules, regulations, laws if they can show harm to whatever they are trying to play victim on which is usually....profits. This ceding of U.S. sovereignty is on an unprecedented scale.
Here's some reading for ya. The below comes straight from our own CIA which keeps track of global account current balances, i.e. trade surpluses and trade deficits. The list starts with with nation the has the highest trade surplus which btw is Germany. Care to guess which country is at the bottom of ALL nations for more than 25 years now. The one that bled $385 billion last year in trade deficits. Take a wild guess. This is the direct result of our corporate free trade adventures. Spin away on that.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Joe Turner
(930 posts)than a international standard. If you call that favoring domestic corporations you are being purposely obtuse. Keep on spinning.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Joe Turner
(930 posts)which greatly expands a corporation's ability to sue government for laws and regulations that they feel are too stringent compared to other international standards. The below is just one of many reports on TPP. Let's see the language of TPP that demonstrates this and thousands of other studies to be inaccurate. You should have no trouble with producing this evidence, no? After all, it is your side that wants to hang this monstrosity on America. Let's see it. Been waiting for this for a long time.
http://www.demos.org/blog/tpp-will-supersede-domestic-law-favor-corporations
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)don't see trade deficits as that big a deal.
"Economists who consider trade deficits good associate them with positive economic developments, specifically, higher levels of income, consumer confidence, and investment. They argue that trade deficits enable the United States to import capital to finance investment in productive capacity. Far from hurting employment, they believe that trade deficits financed by foreign investment in the United States help to boost U.S. employment.
Some economists see trade deficits as mere expressions of consumer preferences and as immaterial. These economists typically equate economic well being with rising consumption. If consumers want imported food, clothing, and cars, why shouldn't they buy them? That range of choices is part of a successful economy."
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/trade-deficits-bad-good.html
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Sure real credible source there. No, I prefer my own eyes on seeing the collapse of our manufacturing base and with it our inner cities, standard of living, and the ever-squeeze on the middle class associated with our trade polices. Why would any rational person take their word any anything given their track record? They [economists] almost to the number said America would show strong trade surpluses with NAFTA and every trade deal since then. But as the CIA trade handbook shows it's all massive deficits. Is it any wonder most economists want to downplay the deleterious effects of trade deficits.
If you have not seen enough economic strife in the last few decades don't worry. It will be even more evident when the wall street casino comes tumbling down and with it all that paper wealth.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)proved to Americans there were better and cheaper products available globally. Apparently, you failed to see the trend.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)drops tariffs and the other side puts a bullseye on a country's industry. You think it is no big deal that we have lost scores of industries and high paying jobs to mercantile trading relationships? This is exactly what has put tens of millions of Americans out of a job and into chronic financial difficulties. Nations that produce little but consume a lot don't last long. The last one that did this lost their vast empire and is the weak man of Europe. We're next as China surpasses us.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Joe Turner
(930 posts)because the corporate owned government wants ever greater profits earns one the distinction of being afraid of foreigners. No I'm actually a lot more afraid of the folks run our government. No country could do to us what our own leaders have.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)progressives are going to keep us from becoming Obama and Merkel's slaves.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Can I assume you don't believe corporations have controlling power within our government? Actually now that you brought it up, Europe has done a much better job of controlling their corporations than we have. And it shows in the trade statistics and rising standard of living. I don't expect a corporate flack like yourself to understand anything other then presenting one red herring after another.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)countries. I guess you've never worked for a corporation, along with a 100+ million other Americans.
I do agree Europe has done a better job of regulating and taxing corporations, and workers for that matter. And workers get more for it. We should too.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)are parties to our trade agreements but these agreements only give incentive to U.S. companies to offshore and place their investments there. Actually I am all in favor of better trade agreements with Europe as we have more in common with them than Asia. And you happen to be wrong again. I've spent a lifetime working for U.S. companies and in manufacturing...what's left of it. My experience has been no matter what the trade agreement, the other nations make sure they get the better deal when it comes to Uncle Sam.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Joe Turner
(930 posts)until our trade policies made it impossible to keep manufacturing here. Once that happened the investment incentives in manufacturing were greatly diminished. Try competing with a nation that has no labor or safety standards, environmental laws, business regulation and workers make a fraction of U.S. wages. Nice to know where you stand though on American quality.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)HP engine to compensate for self esteem deficiencies.
They cost too much for what you got. That's why foreign cars took over, and convinced folks that foreign products were not cheap pieces of junk.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)America was the leader in manufactured goods across a whole range of industries. Care to guess what America's market share is in Japan today with much better cars. It almost does not exist but here they have almost half the market. You find that interesting? How can that be in this global world of ours? Opps, looks like someone is protecting their market. Speaking of quality you must be thrilled with those fine products from China.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Our trucks are reasonably competitive though.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Wasn't that the oft repeated claim of every single corporate trade agreement? Yet more trade promises that bombed out once the one way trade agreements were signed. You are naive if you think Japan or any Asian nation would allow mass exports from American...no matter how good the quality. They are interested in building their industrial base and we let our corporations run wild. We lose this race.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)this is far more than auto jobs. Too bad you are stuck on one industry.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Has lost tens of millions of high paying manufacturing and tech jobs across many industries, not just one and this country is has the distinction of being year after year the nation with the highest trade deficits. That's after foriegn investment in assemby shops here. Your argument goes against the actual results of corporate trade deals. They were suppossed to create prosperity. It did the exact opposite. BTW, my industry is doing quite well thanks...you seem to broad assumptions about things you have no clue about.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)or more.
Other industries can do quite well too, others are a losing cause. I know some here hate the "buggy whip manufacturing" analogy, but much of what we've lost is in that realm. Other job loses are due to technology, necessary to compete with lower foreign wages.
Creating foreign markets won't hurt us the way some people seem to think, it may help.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Bad trade policy has been at the heart of our industrial and middle class decline. It's ridiculous to assume that TPP with biggest corporate welfare deal of all will do anything but further sink this country in red ink. Oh yes, the buggy whip analog. Let me ask you this: If a coutnry lost its manufacturing and technological infrasture just what foundation is there to create new innovatiave products. Once we exited TVs we lost all the future sales of HD TVs. There are countless of examples and this is a big reason why so many Americans are struggling.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Let's see Pew Research another rusting Beltway think tank embedded into the Washington DC power structure is supposed to have credibility on their polls regarding corporate trade deals. Have they ever not in been in favor of free corporate trade deals? Let me submit to you the adage: There are lies, damn lies and then there are beltway think tanks. Think tanks that have played an integral role selling corporate written trade policies that have led to the destruction of America's once proud manufacturing sector. It does not take too much imagination to wonder how those questions on trade were designed to get the results they want. And obviously you, like a few others here, have some economic interest in TPP.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Yes they publish articles but basically they take the pulse of the nation on particular issues. Some of us dismiss polls, some live and die by them, but personally I think it's important to know what people are actually thinking if we want to call ourselves a democracy.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)What a joke. Pew is about propaganda and control by the people that fund them. They are not interested in any real democracy. Only a fraudulent one they can sell to the gullible.
ananda
(28,866 posts)..
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)BRUCE STOKES, Foreign Policy, MAY 29, 2015:
"politicians are out of sync with a turn in public sentiment."
This is particularly true among young people and Hispanics, a potent new constituency for trade which also happens to be disproportionately Democratic-leaning.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/29/when-did-democrats-become-americas-free-trade-believers/
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)are against it, while conservative Republicans are generally for it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Here's a clue for you. TPP is not about trade. It is about giving investors the right to sue governments for laws that diminish their profits, which has jackshit to do with trade.
And if you're really worried about ISDS, which is basically a compliance mechanism, go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026723402
eridani
(51,907 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It wasn't Barack Obama's idea.
eridani
(51,907 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Campaigns aren't cheap.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Mortgages? Credit cards? Car loans? How many rights have you "signed away" in the course of getting your utilities hooked up for instance? Or to get a job? Getting worked up over arbitration agreements is pretty lame.
eridani
(51,907 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Particularly Hispanics (71%), younger voters (69%), and liberal Democrats (59%), who view free trade agreements positively:
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Your point?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and to the Obama administration. Who knew the public mood had shifted so much in just four years? Or that Obama was right about TPP opponents fighting the last war?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The idiots don't know anything more than what they are told to know.
Indeed, with numbers like these, democracy is dead. What's odd is all the cheering for the demise.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)keep telling yourself democracy is dead.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)They can't afford one now.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I won't be buying one either way since I don't drive.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)And why do you anticipate there will be one in every driveway in two years?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But based on my recollection of the last Clinton presidency I'd say the chances are good that if the election goes well in Nov. 16 we're in for some high times:
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)You can have electric cars under about any form of government.
I thought it was misogyny to compare much less conflate Bill with Hillary. Why aren't you being shouted down by adorers probably because they are hypocrites that can't differentiate the 2 for 1 team's policy positions either but like to use "isms" as a handy cudgel.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)by them, and romanticize the past.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/29/when-did-democrats-become-americas-free-trade-believers/
djean111
(14,255 posts)So the poll is bullshit cherry-picked hogwash.
Might as well ask "Do you believe in feeding babies?".
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'm sorry if it doesn't match your preconceptions, but that's why polls are taken.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)1. Trade in Goods
2. Textiles
3. Services
4. Investment
5. Labor
6. Environment
7. E-Commerce and Telecommunications
8. Competition Policy and State-Owned Enterprises
9. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
10. Intellectual Property Rights
11. Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
12. Transparency, Anticorruption and Regulatory Coherence
13. Customs, Trade Facilitation, and Rules of Origin
14. Government Procurement
15. Development and Trade Capacity-Building
16. Dispute Settlement
17. U.S.-Japan Bilateral Negotiations on Motor Vehicle Trade and Non-Tariff Measures
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-issue-issue-negotiating-objectives
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Here are some TPP threads I've posted that explain what the TPP is and what it's supposed to accomplish:
What it is: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a 12-country trade agreement that will replace NAFTA (US, Canada and Mexico) with a new treaty that also includes Japan, Australia, Peru, Vietnam and 5 other countries, China excluded, although China has recently expressed interest in joining:
"China may join the TPP... but it'll take a while," Marketplace, Thursday, June 4, 2015
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/president-obama-talks-trade/china-may-join-tppbut-itll-take-while
What it's supposed to accomplish: The long and short is that it's part of President Obama's plan to grow the economy, to borrow Bill Clinton's phrase, by creating export markets for US goods and new US jobs producing them. Additionally the TPP provides a rather detailed regulatory framework for the protection of intellectual property, services and investments, labor rights, and the environment.
And now the threads:
1. Sun Jun 7, 2015: Pew Research, May 27: "Free Trade Agreements Seen as Good for U.S."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026793057
2. Wed May 27, 2015: NPR on TPP: "It's A Beast"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026733529
3. Sun May 24, 2015: ISDS up close and personal: Philip Morris, FUD vs TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026723402
4. Sun May 24, 2015: Can we agree that jobs are not the problem with TPP?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026720037
5. Sat May 23, 2015: WaPo: "Why Obamas key trade deal with Asia would actually be good for American workers" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026716674
6. Fri May 22, 2015: John Kerry on TPP: "95 percent of the worlds consumers live beyond the borders of the US" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026714251
7. Wed May 20, 2015: NAFTA passed on Nov. 20, 1993, on the promise of jobs. Oddly enough . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026700031
8. Tue May 19, 2015: Supporting TPP is written into the latest (2012) Democratic Party Platform:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026694048
9. Sat May 16, 2015: Guess which "national spokesman on the issue of sovereignty" opposed TPA?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026679777
10. Wed May 13, 2015: It's not a declaration of war, it's not an embargo, it's not a no-fly zone,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026670009
11. Sat May 9, 2015: If Sanders and Warren were telling the truth, they'd argue FOR, not against, the TPA. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026649703
12: Fri Jan 30, 2015: The point of TPP is to boost US exports. That's why PBO is behind it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159076
13: Fri Jan 2, 2015: "USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Outline"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6034217
14: Fri Jan 2, 2015: A US State Dep't site search returns 790 texts and transcripts using "Trans-Pacific Partnership," http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026034112
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)Truman epitomized this with the International Trade Organization and GATT. The former was rejected by a republican congress. The latter approved by Truman by executive order so that the same congress could not reject it, too. Tariffs were lowered by every Democratic president after Truman.
The republican party was the high-tariff, low-trade party until 1980 when its establishment adopted the long-standing Democratic trade policy.
As you can tell from the poll results you posted (and many others), the republican establishment may have flip-flopped on trade but their base never did. Of course, their base not only dislikes trade agreements and the WTO, they detest the UN, the IMF, the World Bank plus practically every international agreement and organization since they all diminish 'national sovereignty' and push the concept of global cooperation and 'We are all in this together". Conservatives much prefer "US, exceptional Americans" vs "THEM, sneaky foreigners" to "We are all in this together".
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Yes per the May 27 Pew poll it appears that anti-TPP sentiment in the U.S. skews older, more conservative, Republican, and non-Hispanic, the last overwhelmingly.
Gee who would have predicted that?
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The TPP WILL ALLOW MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS TO TELL AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS WHAT TO DO, AND STRIKE DOWN LAWS THAT FAVOR THE PEOPLE. ITS VIOLATING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND ALLOWING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE PAWNS OF CORPORATIONS. IT TURNS PROFIT INTO A RIGHT.
God damnit, I wonder how much these people get paid to mindlessly post propaganda.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Obviously if you are just fine with handing over American sovereignty to big multinational corporations, you must hate America.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That's how anti-TPP sentiment skews, and it's a shrinking minority, per these latest Pew Research figures.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)BTW, I am a bit jealous of being able to make money posting things on the internet...
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Check my journal.
........
Note to jury: FUD = "Fear, uncertainty, and doubt" and describes a classic GOP swiftboating technique.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You don't play around when it comes to misrepresenting people, do you?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)On Citizens United"
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/02/poll-finds-80-republicans-agree-bernie-sanders-citizens-united.html
Guess you walked right into that one
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Wow.
Why does that not surprise me?
From the article:
The CBS/NYT poll found that:
80% of Republicans believe that money has too much influence in our politics.
54% believed that most of the time candidates directly help those who gave money to them.
81% of Republicans felt that the campaign finance system needed fundamental changes (45%) or a complete rebuild (36%).
64% are pessimistic that changes will be made to reform the campaign finance system.
71% want to limit the amount that individuals can give to campaigns.
73% felt that super PAC spending should be limited by law.
76% thought that superPACs should be required to disclose their donors.
...
All of these positions are held by Bernie Sanders, and the opinion of the majority on each question is the exact opposite of the reasoning used by the majority of the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision.Overall, 84% of Americans agree with Bernie Sanders that money has too much influence in U.S. politics. Seventy-five percent favor donor disclosure and 77% favor limiting contributions.
Hillary Clinton and President Obama also favor getting the money out of politics, but both of them have been forced to raise huge sums of money in order to be competitive.
Bernie Sanders isnt as far out of the mainstream as the media likes to believe, and it is also clear that mainstream America wants their country back from the billionaires who are attempting to take it over.
You didn't even bother to read it, did you?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Good to know where your candidate stands on that issue.
And another reason to vote for Bernie.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)"and CU isn't the only shared view" like that was a bad thing when I questioned why you called Sanders and Warren "conservatives".
What did you mean?
Which one of the positions listed above makes them conservative?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Which positions in the article you linked to are conservative?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Here we go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6795948
Any time.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Then you said "Per the Pew poll their views on free trade are shared by a shrinking conservative minority."
I asked you to clarify: "Warren and Sanders are now conservatives according to you?"
And you followed with a quote and link about Republicans agreeing with Bernie over Citizens United and the comment
"Guess you walked right into that one"
as if you had proved something.
What did I walk right into?
Which part of the article you linked to proves your point?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's usually what happens when anyone asks you to explain why we're wrong about the TPP.
I just thought maybe you'd upped your game.
My bad.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I think some ribs are showing lol. Nice to see someone run him off with an avalanche of facts and very good persuasive writing. That doesn't happen very often.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I try to ignore the propaganda but sometimes it's just too galling.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I love happy endings.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Expecially when going along with something puts you in a potentially vulnerable situation where you would have to trust the person your dealing with.
So being optimistic like that is just plain foolish IMO.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Born from the republican party, nurtured in the republican party and has the support of over 90% of the republican congress. I don't know about older, but your trade policies fit in perfectly with the republican party. That's why for TPP to pass they have to peel off just enough democrats to win because the republican party is all in. The real shrinking minority is anyone that believes letting our corporations write our trade policies will lead us to prosperity.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Everything you ever wanted to know about the TPP and more: TPP At-a-Glance
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)TIA.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)p.s. "this week" = May 2014
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Really?
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And:
Better leave this one to FOX as it's their bread and butter.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Would not have expected that. Especially among Democrats.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I would say less than 5% actually understand what TPP is and what it would do.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Good times!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)so sad
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Who but Barack Obama could have finally banished Ross Perot's ghost?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I wonder how many of those polled could "show their work" and demonstrate how "free" trade has helped them.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Here's the effect NAFTA actually had on US employment for example. Note that the governing administration has a far greater effect on the economy than any trade deal ever could:
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)that you can fool most of the people most of the time,
especially if you are using a great propaganda machine.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)lol.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)having said that Pew has definately become an neoliberal defense network.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It's a silly meaningless poll. Of course people support a generic free trade policy, just as they'd support Peace In The Middle East in a poll.The Devil is in the details, however.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Always to propagandize an otherwise unpopular tenet.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)In addition, trade agreements continue to be seen as doing more to cost jobs than create them. In the new survey, 46% say free trade agreements lead to job losses in the United States; just 17% say they create jobs in this country. That is only somewhat more positive than five years ago, when 55% said trade deals cost jobs and 8% said they create jobs.
By comparison, there has been a smaller increase in positive views of the impact of free trade agreements among those who rate their own finances as only fair (41% today vs. 34% in November 2009).
Those who rate their finances as poor continue to say free trade agreements have had a negative effect on their financial conditions. About twice as many people who say their finances are in poor shape say they have been hurt than helped by free trade agreements (55% vs. 27%). That is little changed from the way people who saw their financial situations as poor viewed free trade agreements six years ago; at that time, 50% said their finances were hurt by free trade and just 24% said they were helped.
According to that info the TPP is just fucking awesome if you don't care about the opinions of poor people.
Propaganda only works if people don't look at it too closely.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Yes there is as yet uncertainty about the particular effects of the TPP but the newly emerging consensus is that free trade will benefit the nation's interests and that's what the executive branch must concern itself with:
"Today, 43% take a positive view of the financial impact of free trade agreements"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted May 12-18, 2015 among a national sample of 2,002 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (700 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 1,302 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 750 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older.
You want people to believe that those who oppose the TPP are a tiny minority and because we're the "fringe" our opinion should be dismissed.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But you're killin it here, ucrdem.
Just look at all the people you've converted today.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You ignored all of the negative views and highlighted the ones that "prove" your opinion is the only one that is in lockstep with Americans.
Just like FoxNews.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I used data from the same poll to illustrate the difference between the two.
If anyone is a true believer it's the op.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Because now she does not have to hide every time someone asks her about where she stands on TPP. She can now, with confidence, support, heck, actually run on a platform of passing the TPP because Americans like free trade deals. See, she didn't have anything to worry about at all on the TPP issue. So I am looking forward to her forthcoming announcement of support for the TPP. This is smart politics right? Expressing support for popular issues that Americans want passed like TPP seems like a winner to me. What say you?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)because it means a certain single-issue challenger is on the losing side.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What "single issue" would that be?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And you wonder why no one takes your opinion seriously.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)sitting on this one," Sanders told CNN:
"You cannot be on the fence on this one. You are either for it or you are against it. No fence-sitting on this one," Sanders told CNN Sunday.
Sanders was referring specifically to Trade Promotion Authority legislation, also known as "Fast Track," which the Senate began debating this week. The legislation would prohibit Congress from amending trade bills, limiting them to a strict up or down vote.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sanders-demands-hillary-clarify-trade-position/article/2564648
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)adjective
1.
pertaining or devoted to one public issue only, especially a political one:
single-issue voters.
Nice try.
Perhaps you can find actual evidence that he's only running on one issue and post it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'll find you a quote and post the link if you really can't remember back that far. Hang on.
Here:
"If you want to understand why the middle class in America is disappearing and why we have more wealth and income inequality in America than we have had since the late 1920s, you have to address the issue of trade, he says. I think that Hillary Clinton and every candidate out there should in fact address whether or not they support this T.P.P."
http://digital.vpr.net/post/sanders-strongly-opposes-obamas-trans-pacific-trade-partnership
Looks like his gotcha got him.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)adj.
Of, relating to, or concerned with a single public issue, especially a controversial one, to the exclusion of all other issues: single-issue politics.
Just like Sarah Palin, you have no idea what "gotcha" means.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)In such a desperate situation that you will try even the most unhopeful way of solving it; from the idea of a drowning person trying to gain a hold on anything at all, however flimsy.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Since you and Pew say it is a winning issue, should she not, right now, come out strongly in favor of TPP? I'm mean it's a no-brainer right?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Certainly in the debates.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Especially when her challengers are constantly bashing her for being in support of past free corporate trade deals with the insinuation that she secretly supports the TPP. Shouldn't she call out Sanders and skewer him for being against the TPP? After all, her position is the same as most Americans, according to you and Pew. Seems like the time is right for Hillary to make an unequivocal statement in support of TPP and contrast that with her challengers' opposition to it. Makes sense to me. How about you?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Why bash an opponent when they're doing a great job of it themselves?
Joe Turner
(930 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)this opposition to the most liberal progressive trade promotion for labor standards, environmental standards, addressing NAFTA issues, international standards of positive US-led conduct...as if no other parties from China to every capitalist corporation in America won't do deals without us or any other concern other than profit!
I know Obama is 'amazed', too!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I guess I'm beyond being amazed though. I absolutely love DU and its members but I've learned to accept the fact that as a group we are usually a couple of years behind the curve.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)That makes for a pretty convincing case, doesn't it?
pampango
(24,692 posts)there is a connection between believing in creationism and opposing TPP. It's just a coincidence. 😊
IDemo
(16,926 posts)that the use of polling data of the general public does not equal the validation of an argument.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Polls that show a consistent partisan difference on an issue are informative - whether it is creationism or TPP, if still not indicative of who is right and who is wrong.
Rex
(65,616 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)nt
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Can you address the actual provisions of the treaty or is a badly worded popularity contest all you've got?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Don't harsh the buzz, they spent hours collecting previous posts and cobbling them together with certain poll numbers.
Voila!
They're right and everyone else is wrong!
Vinca
(50,278 posts)Polls should be preceded by a basic literacy of the issues quiz.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Vinca
(50,278 posts)you can't have "Jaywalkers" responding to them.
pampango
(24,692 posts)all proposed at the same time in 1944?
The polls show that most Democrats view positively these new international agreements being negotiated by Obama must be reflecting attitudes stuck in the "old FDR Democratic thinking" about cooperative international engagement rather than the "New Democratic" suspicion of such endeavors.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The internet is a great place to get and discuss the news, beats broadcast TV by miles, but it's probably even more susceptible to what might gently be called libertarian persuasion. And it works, and it gets reflected here. That's my analysis anyway.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Newspeak, in practice, every day here at DU.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Libertarians are in favor of the free flow of labor, capital, goods, and services. That's pretty much the basic definition of a classical liberal, from which the term libertarian is derived.
Don't throw around labels if you clearly don't understand them.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)At last count . . .
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Libertarians are against regulation that they see as inhibiting the ability of businesses to make money. Given that the TPP is explicitly an attack on the regulatory structure of the signatory states, your comment is asinine.
Find one libertarian who opposes the TPP, or any trade treaty, on trade grounds. Find just one. I dare you.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)More about the TPP here: TPP At-a-Glance
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Man, you don't even know what you're peddling. Tell me, exactly how does it regulate trade. Tell me in three sentences.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement:
link: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#axzz3Nij1eFRg
If you can't at least summarize a subject in three sentences or less, you don't understand it. Since you can't do that, and you make ridiculous claims like libertarians oppose free trade, my suspicion is confirmed: you don't understand this subject in the least. You really should stop posting on this subject because continuing to do so does you no favors.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)MFrohike
(1,980 posts)It'd only help you if you pointed it out, instead of claiming it's there without mentioning where.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Blue links prove you can cut and paste, not that you understand what you're cutting and pasting.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That was funny.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Sums it up pretty well
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/11/1383377/-Cartoon-The-populist-menace
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)As I recall the invisible hand is an argument for laissez-faire capitalism, i.e. letting the magic of the marketplace take the place of regulation. TPP however is an example of hyper-regulation.
And speaking of making the invisible visible, the link I keep mentioning goes to reply #20 of this thread, "TPP at a Glance," which does indeed contain a 3-sentence synopsis of the whole enchilada, plus a healthy number of DU links.
And here once again is the TPP At-a-Glance link, which incidentally is also in my signature:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6793235
Romulox
(25,960 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)yeah we agree. As we all know, the corporations and the US Chamber of Commerce are all about more regulations that will cause them to not hurt workers or the environment.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Now that is a state of confusion, fer sure!
Libertarians consider government evil, and absence of intervention is not support for any economic policy. This is in no way classical liberalism.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I said it's derived from it. The overlap is quite substantial, though most classical liberals weren't closet monarchists. Nonetheless, their general positions on the free flow issues are identical or close enough not to make much difference.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)GATT was a general lowering of tariffs. With the notable exception of the northeast, that is a position that has been historically supported by most of America. The IMF and the World Bank were proposed in order to prevent liquidity crises in order to support the Breton Woods agreement. None of that is remotely comparable to the "trade" treaties of today. TPP and TTIP have virtually nothing to do with tariffs, since those are already covered under WTO (and are about as low as possible).
I ask if you're serious, because I don't see how you can be if you actually know anything about the institutions you mention. The issue today has nothing to do with free trade because, assuredly, we have it. The most optimistic estimates of the effect of the TPP on US GDP are a couple of percentage points over a 10 year period. Most of those assumed gains come from financial services and government granted monopolies. That's not a strong case for attacking what are euphemistically called "non-tariff barriers." It's not actual products made by American workers that are going to benefit, it's finance and those very government granted monopolies (patent and copyright) that will benefit. Given their commanding position in our economy as it is, do we really need to give them yet another leg up?
GATT, the IMF, and the World Bank were a response to a genocidal war. They were a rational response to prior economic competition that had helped begin two world wars. If that is your concern, I suggest you contact Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke, or Mario Draghi. Their QE and zero interest rate policies have enabled the largest currency war in history. That's a continuing source of diplomatic irritation and does not lend itself to a more peaceful world.
pampango
(24,692 posts)on labor rights, business practices, investor protection and others with an enforcement mechanism that involved arbitration to resolve international disputes.
In the sense that the ITO went way beyond just lowering tariffs and 'non-tariff barriers' and went into how a society functioned - labor rights, business regulation, investor protections, a commitment to full employment, etc., it was similar in nature to TPP and TTIP which go way beyond tariffs and traditional 'non-tariff barriers'.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I'd missed the ITO, probably because it was never ratified. Even so, I'm not sure that an invasive regulatory regime, based on the Four Freedoms, combined with a fixed exchange regime is anything like the current proposals. The TPP and TTIP seem closer to Napoleon's customs union than Roosevelt's proposals to reduce the ability of countries to undercut each other into war.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I've made a deliberate and persistent effort to educate myself about economics over the years. I've read books by Krugman, Sachs, Stiglitz. (one very good book was The Creation and Destruction of Value -- The Globalization Cycle, by Harold James) I've read works by free-market writers, left-wing writers, (I especially like Andre Gorz), radical thinkers, etc. I've argued these ideas with my family (my brother), my co-workers, and on the internets.
I'm opposed to the TPP on pragmatic and ethical grounds, which I won't go into here.
But my point is this. I've taken a long journey to get where I am. The average person in America today doesn't read books, doesn't read newspapers, doesn't dive deep into public policy, ethics, philosophy, etc. Capitalism is the status quo. In myriad ways, it's inculcated into the way we think from the time we're young until our adulthood. It's reflected in our institutions, our government, our society.
Trade is good. Protectionism is bad. Most people never take the time to seriously question their basic beliefs.
The arguments against free trade are not simple ones to make. The free-trade side (as is often the case) has the advantage of simplicity. Trade is good.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)after their larger employees packed up and moved on after NAFTA. I bet pretty low. It wasn't pretty and I don't want to see it happen again.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)TPP is not free trade. It is another in a long line of corporate investment and outsourcing scams masquerading as so called "free trade" designed to give more profits to the mega-rich along with more power over our local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If this is such a good thing for America, shouldn't there be hundreds of DUers using this issue to stump for votes for Clinton?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I just looked in the HC group and I don't see any support for the TPP.
Must be some other reason.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You really should start looking up the definitions of those words you keep throwing around.
You're not doing yourself any favours by using the wrong terminology to misrepresent your opponents.
It just makes you look like a FoxNews pundit.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Just kidding, of course! Turnabout is fair play, isn't it?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Trollery that bad should be strictly pay-to-play.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Obviously the thought of Obama screwing us breaks your mind, and causes you to seek myriad ways to put lipstick on a pig (TPP). That or a paycheck.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I know it has the best of intentions but I do not consider Public Citizen a reliable source of information.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I can not imagine how anyone thinks turning our country over to global entities who do not have our best interests at heart can be a good thing.
I trust Public Citizen and Wikileaks far more than I trust the words coming out of the mouth of our politicians including Obama. Hillary needs to take a stand.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I have tremendous respect for you madfloridian, and your post has several sources and deserves a worthy refutation, so I will give it a little more scrutiny and post a fuller response when I have it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'm going to put Public Citizen aside as it basically demagogues on a rather obscure issue that really deserves careful scrutiny, but rarely gets it, certainly not in Public Citizen. The LA Times piece does the same but with more restraint. That leaves the blog post by Sean Flynn who apparently knows something about the law:
http://infojustice.org/archives/34298
What Flynn seems to be arguing is that language written into the TPP to assuage anxiety about the loss of "sovereignty" to dispute resolution panels doesn't quite deliver what it promises, i.e., the ability of local laws to trump arbitration. And my response is, it seems like a perfectly legitimate position, but it's still an opinion as to whether TPP goes far enough to address what to me is a bogus issue to begin with.
Why? Because if a particular national industry (let's say, pork producers) really can't abide by the decision of a dispute resolution panel (let's say, regarding country of origin labeling laws on imported pork), the offended jurisdiction (let's say, the US, in defense of the the Pork Producers Association) can always pull out of the game and stop importing pork. They would need of course to also stop exporting pork and many other goods. So it's a balancing act between interests at this stage and the arbitration is set up to adjudicate cases that the 29 volumes of the TPP don't or can't anticipate. If the final product is too onerous any particular nation they can refuse to enter at the start. As to the penalties for withdrawal I don't know any but I imagine it could be done without coming to blows. So the long and short is, dispute resolution is a way of making the whole thing work, and the benefits or we might say the greater good outweighs the lesser injuries.
p.s. here's a DU thread that I hope explains further why I think ISDS is a bogus wedge issue:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026723402
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Propaganda is an effective tool.
Rex
(65,616 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Sorry, but you are wrong.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)or did I miss it?
What was that about mind reading?
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)It's about enriching the few at the expense of the many.
Rex
(65,616 posts)We need 'fair trade'.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I don't think they know what it means! I think they feel safety in numbers - IOW just going along with the other fish.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)and whose agenda they are pushing.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)There is definitely an agenda that is being pushed, and pushed hard.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)have never worked a day of manual labor in their lives. They easily pull in 6-figures and believe the 1% will actually give a shit about them when the time comes. They are delusional enough to believe they are well off and the people that are not are at fault for it.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)So it is impossible for them to become embarrassed imo.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)Recently, they've adopted the revisionist history saying NAFTA created over 20 million American jobs and without TPP we will become isolated with no international trade at all.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)By MARIANNE LEVINE 6/8/15
The Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold $23,660 to as much as $52,000.
The Obama administration is on the verge of possibly doubling the salary levels that would require employers to pay overtime in the most ambitious government intervention on wages in a decade. And it doesnt need Congresss permission.
As early as this week, the Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold $23,660 to as much as $52,000, extending time and a half overtime pay to millions of American workers. The rule has already come under fire from business and Republican opponents who say it will kill jobs and force employers to cut hours for salaried employees.
The minimum wage they cant do, said Bill Samuel, director of legislative affairs for the AFL-CIO. This is probably the most significant step they can take to raise wages for millions of workers.
Congressional Republicans are gearing up for a major battle against raising the overtime threshold. The House Education and the Workforce subcommittee will devote much of a scheduled June 10 hearing on federal wage and hour standards to the overtime rule, even if it isnt yet released.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/barack-obama-overtime-salary-levels-white-house-118688.html#ixzz3cWLChhhp
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Yeah I really went to town on this one LOL! Was it worth it? Hell yeah!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)(although they've been suspiciously silent on the European version, the TTIP), and people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders - who hadn't even read the TPP drafts, for chrissakes - were out there propagating the trumped-up demonization, undermining President Obama.
And yeah, you going to town with it was more than worth it!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But it had to be done, and better Barack than Jeb. And I have to say it's a huge relief to see a certain populist getting trampled in the polls.