Bloomberg hits Hillary on Obama’s Trade deal, Democrats call for her to take a position that doesn’t come:

Hillary Clinton Remains Silent as Trade Deal Nears Senate Vote

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-12/hillary-clinton-remains-silent-as-trade-deal-nears-senate-vote

Stunning failure for his presidency.

Stunning failure for his presidency.

_____________________________________________________________________

Another stunning failure for his presidency.

Stunning defeat. Probably because Obama made it next to impossible to give legislators a chance to even read the bill, but that was probably Bush's fault.

So I assume you three making up the right wing brain trust wanted the trade deal to work?

So I assume you three making up the right wing brain trust wanted the trade deal to work?

I don't think they really care. They really only want to make Obama look bad as often as possible. I think they are still afraid he will be reelected again.

I've never understood how the Democrats succeed at playing both sides of the trade issue. When they campaign, trade deals are bad (umkay). When in office, trade deals are good (umkay).

Republicans on the other hand never saw a trade deal they didn't like. Atleast they are consistent if nothing else.

Glad it failed. The President should not have fast track authority on such an issue, Congress must have input.

The deal would have given a President accelerated authority to make trade deals and required Congress to vote up or down on it before it could go into effect.

There are arguments on both sides. More/easier trade is good for manufacturing but labor costs and government regulations in The U.S. would help other countries jobs more than The U.S., maybe. Much depends on which politician is doing the spinning.

The unions were raising hell with their Democrats who they control with political donations. Yesterday Pelosi rallied the House Democrats against Obama reminding them that they all have to be re-elected.

It is not that Obama has never learned how to work with Congress; he refuses to work with The Republicans.
While he, in front of the TV cameras says he “wants to work with the Congress” he in fact never does. When he meets with “Congressional leaders” it is usually only with Democrats. Well that worked when he had Pelosi and Reid to block anything the Republicans brought to the table but now that those two lost their power Obama’s agenda is in trouble.

The funny came at The White House after the vote with Obama’s mouthpiece trying to spin the defeat and struggling to blame Republicans. He looked like he wanted to anywhere else than in the press room.

President Reagan (R), who never had a Republican majority Congress and Speaker Tip O’Neill (D) go the work done.

It is a matter of leadership.

So I assume you three making up the right wing brain trust wanted the trade deal to work?

I don't think they really care. They really only want to make Obama look bad as often as possible. I think they are still afraid he will be reelected again.

I don't agree with the secrecy surrounding this bill, and if the government wants to "fast track" something it's time to slow down. IMO

So I assume you three making up the right wing brain trust wanted the trade deal to work?

I don't think they really care. They really only want to make Obama look bad as often as possible. I think they are still afraid he will be reelected again.

________________________________________________________________________

Apparently you didn’t see the vote.
Republicans worked with Obama to get the deal done.
The Democrats voted against it.

Can you imagine someone like Hillary Clinton negotiating trade deals? If you think the Clinton Foundation is swimming in cash now, just imagine that scenario. Aside from that, she doesn't even believe that corporations and businesses create jobs.

Apparently you didn’t see the vote.
Republicans worked with Obama to get the deal done.
The Democrats voted against it.

So you are for the deal Mule?

Apparently you didn’t see the vote.
Republicans worked with Obama to get the deal done.
The Democrats voted against it.

So you are for the deal Mule?

______________________________________________________________________

Yes, in the version as voted on last Friday that includes the requirement that Congress must approve any trade deal.

This is an important tool for a President to use in bringing economic expansion. Obama has but a short time left in office and can do little more harm. As the U.S. economy continues in a zero-growth pattern only a new President could make good use of the trade authority.

How this bill proceeds now is the unknown. The Democrats intend to try and attach amendments that would kill the bill.
Their cash-cow, the unions are already running ads against it. The AFL-CIO is running an ad that shows a down trodden black man claiming that free trade is the reason for the troubles in Baltimore.
Hillary of course won’t take a position.

Don’t hold your breath.

Yes, in the version as voted on last Friday that includes the requirement that Congress must approve any trade deal.

This is an important tool for a President to use in bringing economic expansion. Obama has but a short time left in office and can do little more harm. As the U.S. economy continues in a zero-growth pattern only a new President could make good use of the trade authority.

Are you for all the secrecy in the trade agreement? How do you know what you are supporting? I didn't think the bill was made public. Do you have a link where the actual bill can be read?

These trade deals are the beginning of the end of US sovereignty in the same way the EU has been steadily destroying national sovereignty in Europe.

It also exposes what a fraud our "two party system is" and Obama especially. Remember, Obama ran as "the most transparent administration in history" and, although hard to remember now, as someone who would rid the white house of lobbyist influence. These deals were written over the course of 5 years by hundreds of corporate lobbyists in such secrecy that members of congress are STILL not allowed to have copies of it. Wikileaks has reported that something along the lines of only 4 of the 16 chapters of the TPP even deal with trade. So what do the other 12 chapters deal with? I wonder.

I also love the headline "Obama and Republicans face defeat over TPP." Really says a lot.

This is the beginning of the end of US as we have known it. I think history will look back on these deals and Obama and this government - both parties who enacted this - as far, far and away the most damaging and awful of any presidency and any congress up to this point. This will be Obama's real legacy not Obamacare.

Yes, in the version as voted on last Friday that includes the requirement that Congress must approve any trade deal.

This is an important tool for a President to use in bringing economic expansion. Obama has but a short time left in office and can do little more harm. As the U.S. economy continues in a zero-growth pattern only a new President could make good use of the trade authority.

Are you for all the secrecy in the trade agreement? How do you know what you are supporting? I didn't think the bill was made public. Do you have a link where the actual bill can be read?

_______________________________________________________________________

No secrecy at all.
Unlike Democrats, The Republicans publish all bills well in advance of a vote.

This bill is: H. R. 1892
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr1892rh/pdf/BILLS-114hr1892rh.pdf

Here is a nice summary of some of the unprecedented damage these "trade" deals are going to do to this country:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement

Note the part about corporations being able to sue governments for "future profits" (i.e. YOUR money you pay in taxes) if regulations interfere with profits as decided by an international arbitrator NOT US court.

Can you imagine someone like Hillary Clinton negotiating trade deals? If you think the Clinton Foundation is swimming in cash now, just imagine that scenario. Aside from that, she doesn't even believe that corporations and businesses create jobs.

Your ongoing obsession with HC is consistent. I'm wondering if it really represents some underlying love interest you have in some twisted way.

Here is a nice summary of some of the unprecedented damage these "trade" deals are going to do to this country:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement

Note the part about corporations being able to sue governments for "future profits" (i.e. YOUR money you pay in taxes) if regulations interfere with profits as decided by an international arbitrator NOT US court.

_________________________________________________________________________

The writer of the article you note is a far-left whack-job who also writes for Salon.com which openly admits it is a liberal tabloid.
He musings about the TAA while cute are so far off the reality scale it doesn’t register.

A perfect example is his "sue governments for "future profits". Flat bullshit. Read the language in the bill.

If you want to know something about legislation, read the actual bill and avoid internet sites with a clear political agenda. If you don’t understand the bill, ask a professional.

Here is a nice summary of some of the unprecedented damage these "trade" deals are going to do to this country:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement

Note the part about corporations being able to sue governments for "future profits" (i.e. YOUR money you pay in taxes) if regulations interfere with profits as decided by an international arbitrator NOT US court.

_________________________________________________________________________

The writer of the article you note is a far-left whack-job who also writes for Salon.com which openly admits it is a liberal tabloid.
He musings about the TAA while cute are so far off the reality scale it doesn’t register.

A perfect example is his "sue governments for "future profits". Flat bullshit. Read the language in the bill.

If you want to know something about legislation, read the actual bill and avoid internet sites with a clear political agenda. If you don’t understand the bill, ask a professional.

That's a bit strong don't you think?

There have been plenty of reports of this language for some time now from BOTH the right and the left. Sean Hannity, for example, is the latest voice from the right to call this thing out as a disaster.

You CAN'T read the language of these" trade" partnerships. That is one of the problems.

Here is a nice summary of some of the unprecedented damage these "trade" deals are going to do to this country:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement

Note the part about corporations being able to sue governments for "future profits" (i.e. YOUR money you pay in taxes) if regulations interfere with profits as decided by an international arbitrator NOT US court.

_________________________________________________________________________

The writer of the article you note is a far-left whack-job who also writes for Salon.com which openly admits it is a liberal tabloid.
He musings about the TAA while cute are so far off the reality scale it doesn’t register.

A perfect example is his "sue governments for "future profits". Flat bullshit. Read the language in the bill.

If you want to know something about legislation, read the actual bill and avoid internet sites with a clear political agenda. If you don’t understand the bill, ask a professional.

That's a bit strong don't you think?

There have been plenty of reports of this language for some time now from BOTH the right and the left. Sean Hannity, for example, is the latest voice from the right to call this thing out as a disaster.

You CAN'T read the language of these" trade" partnerships. That is one of the problems.

_______________________________________________________________________

Just to be clear, you do not support Obama on the Trade deal?

Can you imagine someone like Hillary Clinton negotiating trade deals? If you think the Clinton Foundation is swimming in cash now, just imagine that scenario. Aside from that, she doesn't even believe that corporations and businesses create jobs.

Your ongoing obsession with HC is consistent. I'm wondering if it really represents some underlying love interest you have in some twisted way.

My love interest is a 5 foot, 100 pound Alabama sweetheart. Hair down to her waist and half my age. (almost)

Hillary Clinton is a Presidential candidate. They tend to get discussed.

[Edited on 6/14/2015 by alloak41]

What is it with Republicans and young lovers? Hastert, Dugger, Huckabee's ghost writer, when is Huckabee going to admit he likes him wet behind the ears?

Trade agreements this country has signed by and large accomplish two things:

1) Increase profits of US companies who outsource production
2) Increase sales of foreign companies who gain entry to this market

We get smoke blown up are ass about about growing exports and offered an example of a company like Catepillar who wants to sell their products in foreign countries and how that helps American workers. Here is the dirty little secret...CAT has manufacturing facilities not just in the USA, but they have production sources in every continent - Asia, Africa, Europe, you name it. How many of those CAT earth movers being used in India were built in the US?

Think those Chevys and Fords sold in China are built here? No, those companies build cars in Thailand and China and bunches of countries closer to the retail market.

The export growth we are told comes with trade agreements doesn't stand the test of time...instead it turns into a race to the bottom. The bottom of the operating cost equation. While the the pay and standard of living and pay in 3rd world and "developing" nations increases, the reactive effect is our's goes down as a result.

Stop and think, where would the American stock market be without the trade agreements of the last 30 years? And where would the average American be without them?

You think there is a problem in this country in terms of a "disconnect" at the top to the hourly workers? Look no further than trade deals championed by leaders of both parties. The answer is not to make run-of-the-mill jobs pay more, the answer is to not lose the good paying jobs in the first place. But they craft legislation that ships those away and then we're left fighting over how much a cashier at McDonald's should make because they can't raise their kids working there. That isn't the problem, it's so damn obvious what the problem is.

There is a clear reason why these trade deals get pushed and it isn't because of a benefit to Joe-bag-of-donuts, or your typical neighbor, or more than likely even you. Foreign nations and the both domestic and foreign corporations are the beneficiaries and it comes at our expense. They have a seat at the table in these matters, we get a place in the unemployment line.

_______________________________________________________________________

Just to be clear, you do not support Obama on the Trade deal?

I don't care who it is. If these things pass the U.S. is going to lose a massive portion of its power to self govern to an international body and billions (trillions?) of your tax dollars will be available to international corporations via law suits claiming that US laws affected profits. This would affect 80% of the U.S. Economy. Just look at Europe and see how these "trade" partnerships have affected national sovereignty.

Or just consider the fact that they are trying everything they can to keep this thing a secret until AFTER it is made law. That isn't good. They say it's good but I think Christopher Walken summed it up best ; "You're telling me everything but you're showing me nothing."

For what it's worth, as I said earlier, I think Obama will easily go down as the worst president in U.S. History up to this point (praying it doesn't get worse but don't like to trends.) I also think the two party system is largely a sham. Both are simply competing for corporate dollars. I think any representative that votes for this thing, regardless of party, should go down as a bought and paid for lackey and among the worst in U.S. History.

[Edited on 6/14/2015 by axeman]

[Edited on 6/14/2015 by axeman]

Trade agreements this country has signed by and large accomplish two things:

1) Increase profits of US companies who outsource production
2) Increase sales of foreign companies who gain entry to this market

We get smoke blown up are ass about about growing exports and offered an example of a company like Catepillar who wants to sell their products in foreign countries and how that helps American workers. Here is the dirty little secret...CAT has manufacturing facilities not just in the USA, but they have production sources in every continent - Asia, Africa, Europe, you name it. How many of those CAT earth movers being used in India were built in the US?

Think those Chevys and Fords sold in China are built here? No, those companies build cars in Thailand and China and bunches of countries closer to the retail market.

The export growth we are told comes with trade agreements doesn't stand the test of time...instead it turns into a race to the bottom. The bottom of the operating cost equation. While the the pay and standard of living and pay in 3rd world and "developing" nations increases, the reactive effect is our's goes down as a result.

Stop and think, where would the American stock market be without the trade agreements of the last 30 years? And where would the average American be without them?

You think there is a problem in this country in terms of a "disconnect" at the top to the hourly workers? Look no further than trade deals championed by leaders of both parties. The answer is not to make run-of-the-mill jobs pay more, the answer is to not lose the good paying jobs in the first place. But they craft legislation that ships those away and then we're left fighting over how much a cashier at McDonald's should make because they can't raise their kids working there. That isn't the problem, it's so damn obvious what the problem is.

There is a clear reason why these trade deals get pushed and it isn't because of a benefit to Joe-bag-of-donuts, or your typical neighbor, or more than likely even you. Foreign nations and the both domestic and foreign corporations are the beneficiaries and it comes at our expense. They have a seat at the table in these matters, we get a place in the unemployment line.

Absolutely right....NAFTA is a prime example of how these trade deals destroy American jobs for the benefit of the Corporations that push them through our Congress. Whenever I hear Bill Clinton posing as some sort of savior of the middle class I wonder if he thinks we've all forgotten what he did to hasten its demise. He, like Hilary, is a fraud.

Trade agreements this country has signed by and large accomplish two things:

1) Increase profits of US companies who outsource production
2) Increase sales of foreign companies who gain entry to this market

We get smoke blown up are ass about about growing exports and offered an example of a company like Catepillar who wants to sell their products in foreign countries and how that helps American workers. Here is the dirty little secret...CAT has manufacturing facilities not just in the USA, but they have production sources in every continent - Asia, Africa, Europe, you name it. How many of those CAT earth movers being used in India were built in the US?

Think those Chevys and Fords sold in China are built here? No, those companies build cars in Thailand and China and bunches of countries closer to the retail market.

The export growth we are told comes with trade agreements doesn't stand the test of time...instead it turns into a race to the bottom. The bottom of the operating cost equation. While the the pay and standard of living and pay in 3rd world and "developing" nations increases, the reactive effect is our's goes down as a result.

Stop and think, where would the American stock market be without the trade agreements of the last 30 years? And where would the average American be without them?

You think there is a problem in this country in terms of a "disconnect" at the top to the hourly workers? Look no further than trade deals championed by leaders of both parties. The answer is not to make run-of-the-mill jobs pay more, the answer is to not lose the good paying jobs in the first place. But they craft legislation that ships those away and then we're left fighting over how much a cashier at McDonald's should make because they can't raise their kids working there. That isn't the problem, it's so damn obvious what the problem is.

There is a clear reason why these trade deals get pushed and it isn't because of a benefit to Joe-bag-of-donuts, or your typical neighbor, or more than likely even you. Foreign nations and the both domestic and foreign corporations are the beneficiaries and it comes at our expense. They have a seat at the table in these matters, we get a place in the unemployment line.

Absolutely right....NAFTA is a prime example of how these trade deals destroy American jobs for the benefit of the Corporations that push them through our Congress. Whenever I hear Bill Clinton posing as some sort of savior of the middle class I wonder if he thinks we've all forgotten what he did to hasten its demise. He, like Hilary, is a fraud.

These.

Keep people bickering over whether Clinton, Bush I, Bush II or Obama are the devil while the corporate profit motive which doesn't give a sh*t either was loot the nation's wealth.

it is amusing to watch the conservaives here trip all over themselves to make it point about how this is Obama's failure yet not acknowledge that it is a GOP failure as well as it is a bill they support.

So much for their majority in Congress being a game changer....

it is amusing to watch the conservaives here trip all over themselves to make it point about how this is Obama's failure yet not acknowledge that it is a GOP failure as well as it is a bill they support.

So much for their majority in Congress being a game changer....

___________________________________________________________________

The Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the deal.

Side issues and deflection aside, Obama wanted this trade deal badly and publically pushed for it. He personally went to Capitol Hill to beg his party members to support him and his trade deal. His party rejected him.
The Democrats, led by Pelosi, opted for their Union money and voted against their President.

Obama again fails.