Obama Rejects Notion That Trade Deal Is In Danger
Source: Associated Press
As negotiations falter, President Barack Obama is rejecting suggestions that an Asia-Pacific trade deal is in danger and says the U.S. and Japan must take bold steps to overcome differences that are threatening completion of the cornerstone of his strategic rebalance to the region.
....
"Now is the time for bold steps that are needed to reach a comprehensive agreement, and I continue to believe we can get this done," Obama said at a joint news conference with Abe at the Akasaka Palace. "All of us have to move out of our comfort zones and not just expect that we're going to get access to somebody else's market without providing access to our own. And it means that we have to sometimes push our constituencies beyond their current comfort levels because ultimately it's going to deliver a greater good for all people."
That was also a nod to the strong opposition Obama faces at home to the TPP, including from organized labor groups who fear such a deal with leave U.S. workers vulnerable to competition from counterparts in other countries who earn substantially less. Obama's fellow Democrats in Congress also oppose granting him authority that would make it harder for lawmakers to change the trade pact. Business groups strongly back the deal, saying it would create jobs and open new markets to U.S. goods.
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-rejects-notion-that-trade-deal-is-in-danger
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)We all recall Clinton's response: "that depends on what the meaning of "is" is, in his deposition re the Lewinsky scandal.
In this case does "hired" mean "voted for" or does "hired" mean "retained via past corporate donations to his campaigns and promises of post-electoral office board appointments, $1/2 million dollar speaking fees, free use of private jets, etc.? "
I think you meant "voted for", and I agree totally with you that most of us who voted for him don't want him to do that or any other NAFTA-esque trade agreements
djean111
(14,255 posts)"In a show of solidarity with Abe, Obama affirmed that a treaty between their countries would obligate the U.S. to defend Tokyo in a potential clash with Beijing over islands in the East China Sea, called Senkaku by Japan and Diaoyu by China. "
The TPP just keeps getting better and better.
And Obama can comfortably ignore what people want, now. I think he is after another "legacy" thing.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)"Comfort zone" refers to a person's willingness to try something new, not to endorse something proven (by NAFTA) to have horrific impact upon wages, unemployment levels, the trade deficit, and virtually guaranteed to expose consumers to all kinds of dangers by precluding local and national governments from imposing safety regulations!
We're not talking moving out of a comfort zone like say, trading in an old cell phone for the latest, and most complicated, technology available; or moving from a familiar neighborhood to the other side of town; or vacationing in Europe for the first time after a life time of summer vacations in Ocean City.
The TPP is a treacherous and, in the words of the Washington Post, "labyrinthian agreement", negotiated in secret.
There are a wide variety of serious issues that need to be discussed by Congress and the American public. For example, the Washington Post reported:
The United States is proposing a number of provisions designed to strengthen and extend brand-name pharmaceutical companies' monopoly privileges. For example, several provisions would support the pharmaceutical firms' practice of "ever-greening" in which a firm will hold a patent on drug 'x' in tablet form, then later obtain a patent on drug 'x' in a gel cap, and later still obtain another patent on the same drug in capsule form. This extends patent life on a known substance, despite no new medical efficacy; thus it delays generic competition.
As another example,
[TPP] includes provisions similar to those of the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that the European Parliament ultimately rejected. The United States appears to be using the non-transparent Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations as a deliberate end run around Congress on intellectual property, to achieve a presumably unpopular set of policy goals.
Free-trade agreements, such as TPP, haven't protected U.S. jobs.
Recently, Campaign for America's Future revisited the US trade agreement with Mexico -- NAFTA:
In 1993, the broadest assurance by those selling this model - including almost all Republicans and President Clinton - was that it would create U.S. jobs by expanding the trade surplus the U.S. then enjoyed with Mexico... Now the U.S. suffers chronic $60 billion-$70 billion annual trade deficits with Mexico and by this summer the accumulated U.S. current account losses with Mexico under NAFTA will pass $1 trillion.
The Economic Policy Institute says the US lost an estimated 700,000 jobs due to NAFTA.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/trans-pacific-partnership_b_4479420.html
http://www.citizen.org/documents/FTA-V-No-FTA-Factsheet.pdf
http://ourfuture.org/20131217/nafta-20-years-of-spin-for-americas-failed-globalization-model
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/15/five-key-questions-and-answers-about-the-leaked-tpp-text/
Finally, Obama promises us that in the long run, the TPP will be for the "greater good". Well that will be true for the One Percent/Investor class, but not for the rest of us, as per the voluminous statistics and negative results as documented hereinabove. So let's define our terms here: Obama's "greater" refers to the ones with the greatest weath.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)bossy22
(3,547 posts)I pray that it's in mortal danger. In any free trade agreement the richer country always loses out.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Don't tell that to Canada and European countries. They don't lose out but then they have progressive taxes, strong unions and effective safety nets.
Workers on countries with those things do fine - free trade or no free trade. Workers on countries without those things - like the US - do terribly with or without free trade.
The enemy of American workers is not the poor African or Asian, it is our fellow Americans - our oligarchs - who have perverted our tax system, weakened our unions and shredded our safety net. We can wall off every poor foreigner and it won't help. We've tried it in the past. It did not work then because taxes were low and regressive, unions were weak and there were no safety nets to speak of.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)that it stays that way. If Obama is not going to listen then congress will have to continue to oppose this jobs sellout.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)the FACT Americans already stepped out of our "comfort zones" and are still reeling and suffering the losses caused by his friend, Bill Clinton's brilliant ideas of NAFTA/CAFTA.
Bold steps indeed and good-bye to our legal remedies, our sovereignty and the last trickle of rights.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)(The Korean Free Trade Agreement id the prototype for the TPP,
and contains much of the exact language)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-cohen/koreaus-free-trade-agreem_b_4965492.html
"Obama Admins TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks"
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/20/obama-admin%E2%80%99s-tpp-trade-officials-received-hefty-bonuses-from-big-banks/
Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html
Nothing good for the American Working Class will come from this.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.