A List of the Republican ‘Democrats’ Who Fight For Obama's Secret Trade Deals, And For Wall Str

Just a quick fly-by before work to share this infuriating article:

www.commondreams.org...

A group of Republican "Democrats," who have organized themselves under the moniker "New Democrat Coalition," are trying to salvage the two secret international trade deals -- one with the Pacific countries, and the other with the Atlantic countries -- that President Obama (through former Citibank executive and now Obama's U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman) has tried to negotiate on behalf of international mega-corporations so as to override the laws of the U.S. and the other participating nations.

Republicans in Congress want these deals to be passed, and so are staying quiet about the matter, but most Democrats oppose the deals. As The New York Times headlined about the issue, on January 31st, "Obama and G.O.P. Facing Opposition to Trade Pacts."

There are plenty of links in the article to following for confirming information.

The first Democrat to go public against Obama on this matter was U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, on the Senate floor, 23 May 2012, when he said that the TPP “might prove to be the most far-reaching economic agreement since the World Trade Organization was established nearly twenty years ago,” and that, “TPP will set the tone for our nation’s economic future.” He noted, “The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations,” in contravention of the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Even “the Staff Director of the Senate subcommittee responsible for oversight of international trade continues to be denied access to substantive and detailed information that pertains to the TPP talks.”

The only net beneficiaries of the Obama demands, if agreed to by all of the negotiants, would be the executives and stockholders in huge international corporations, whose products and services would become freed from existing government regulations, and whose market power to set prices and to block smaller firms from entering their markets would become an international economic-political stranglehold, corporate fascism.

Happy Thursday Friends.

reply to post by FyreByrd


The Transatlantic Deal I'm not so worried about. The EU and the UK will block that one. Neither of them want expensive deadly pharmaceuticals and GM crops forced on them.

The Trans Pacific Partnership, however, is the real problem. Obama is a Conservative. Wall street has made a killing (literally) under him. The Public Option (let alone single payer) never even made it to the table over Healthcare.

And I can't see it being any better under Hillary.

We need a True Progressive in the White House.

reply to post by BritofTexas


I think you really highlight the core problem here. Obama is the most left, liberal and socialist leader I've personally seen in my 40 years of living memory to reference to comparisons. I honestly, sincerely and genuinely believe that.

You, likewise, honestly, genuinely and sincerely believe he's the opposite and we're both educated people here. Neither of us are teenagers forming opinion by parents pushing an agenda.

Obama is a chameleon and has learned a trick many try and almost no one has ever managed to pull off for any length of time under close public attention. He can be to almost any audience, for the time he's with them, whatever that audience most wants and expects to hear and experience.

it's an interesting talent he's got and adds a whole new dimension to charisma. It absolutely does in his case. It gives no room or forgiveness to those following the pied piper though, especially those claiming to be Conservative in world view.

Then again, Politicians in office are about as right/left in any true sense as the situation demands them to be. They are center scumbag all the time.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


People focus far to much on the Figurehead that gets thrown out every 8 years,

Obamas no more far left than Roosevelt's progressive and new deal,

Nor is he any worst than Reagan at growing the government and encroachment on our liberties.

Wait...

But that was a Dem and Rep example of doing very similar policies to Obama...

Its almost as if the goal of the presidency is only to grow the presidents power, Not party affiliation, nor constituents matter.

The sad truth, is we have had the same string of BS presidents for sometime now, Obama is not the first, and wont be the last.

As long as we vote the two party, we will always get the same outcome.

Its the plan, its always been.

We throw the "a-hole" out every 4-8, and the engine just keeps on going on the same tracks.

That should tell you something is wrong.

reply to post by benrl

People focus far to much on the Figurehead that gets thrown out every 8 years,

I focus on Obama, not for his party at this point..and never for his race at any rate (which half, anyway? His white or black half? lol) I focus on Obama as an individual because he is, individually, the most corrupt leader I've seen at the national level and with power to do real damage in my lifetime as an American, bar none and no exceptions to name.

Having said that..I'll note I do not count Richard Nixon, as I was in diapers while he was busted out of office and really, can't count for lack of direct living experience to say either way there.

Obama though....has really come to resonate and vibrate with a dark corruption of his professional side and, frankly, his Soul, that I just can't honestly compare to anyone else with a straight face. Some previous Presidents have been corrupt in greed or avarice or hubris. We've become accustomed to it and almost think there is something wrong if a leader isn't showing some degree of that. Obama transcends it in many ways, and some I admit are vague in sense and feeling as much as tangible examples I could post or put a citation to.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


And you honestly feel Obama "morally" is "worst" than Bush?

I seriously think its a case of this is the problem now.

Which is exactly how they keep doing this to us, we all forget the ills of the last guy once we kick him out, and tolerate just as much crap from the next guy, because again, we can kick them out.

It leads to a slippery slope of worst and worst choices, all excused as the "problem of the Now"

Until we are willing to address the systemic problems we face,

NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


America has not had a "Progressive" President at least since Carter. I honestly don't know enough about him to make a judgement.

I agree Obama is a Chameleon.

In fact the longer he has been in office the more he reminds me of another, so called, leader. This one though came from the other side of the Pond. Tony Blair came to power after years of a Right Wing Government and was hailed as the great hope of the Country. In fact his backing tune was "Things can only get better" by D:Ream. And for a while "Things" did. Or, at least, they were perceived to.

The truth is of course Blair went native. Like Clinton he listened to the moneyed interests and de-regulated anything that had not already been torn down by his predecessors.

Obama has done the same thing.

Taxpayers recouped about $39 billion of the $50.1 billion pumped into GM in late 2008 and 2009 as the Bush and Obama administrations tried to save the car maker from collapse after years of mismanagement brought to a head by a crippling credit crisis and economic recession.

Forbes

While Peabody Coal, one of the prime sponsors of the FutureGen boondoggle in Illinois, announced an eightfold increase in profits in their fourth quarter reports for 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee just approved legislation for an additional $4.6 billion in handouts to the coal industry as part of the stimulus package, in the guise of “clean coal.”

Grist


He got into office and went native.

Honestly I do not see anything particularly Liberal and certainly not Socialist that he has done.

reply to post by benrl

And you honestly feel Obama "morally" is "worst" than Bush?

I seriously think its a case of this is the problem now.

Oh absolutely and 100% I do. No question whatsoever. Bush was a bastard and a buffoon. His own people have written quite a bit about the absent minded goof that he was on a number of subjects as well as his cowboyish and offhanded remarks away from media that just set me back on my heels.

Bush had people around him as dark as coal for their nature and ability to do whatever it took. I think Bush was too much a Boy Scout to even be fully trusted with everything Obama is doing by direct command and overriding leadership. He shows little leadership where it counts....but he can assassinate Americans with the best of 'em, and he can sure turn our military into a push button hunter/killer force of robots and gizmos like something out of a movie.

Bush started much of that and we'll never honestly know how far it would have gone under him. However, it's very short sighted, in my humble opinion, to think back on Bush as either "as bad" or "as good" as some would portray. The man had a fair mix of both...although even the 'good' often seemed to turn into a pile of crap by the end. Bush had the Midas touch with a distinct brown, stinky warp to the ultimate outcomes.


Obama...on the other hand..is a cold, calculating murdering individual I wouldn't stand in the same room with and turn my back on for an instant. I've felt something weird with him and his ability to carry a crowd nearly spell bound, from 2008 and his campaigning. It's only deepened. The more I see of him in his "lame duck" term (Oh..don't we WISH it were), the more I have come to believe he really IS as cold as he appears to be..and those little chips of obsidian he calls eyes, really don't have anything but an abyss behind them.

Bush was incompetence and Daddy's legacy brought to life with a job the man was neither qualified for nor lived up to. Cheney ran that White House FAR more than little George was allowed to, in my strong opinion. Obama runs everything he chooses to run...and runs the people who run the rest. Therein lay the difference and it's a *HUGE* one to me.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by benrl

 

And you honestly feel Obama "morally" is "worst" than Bush?

I seriously think its a case of this is the problem now.

Oh absolutely and 100% I do. No question whatsoever.

I tend to agree with your assessment. Bush never pretended to give a **** about anything other then partying.

Obama, on the other hand has always spoken with "forked tongue". I almost came to believe in Ick's lizard people theory after the President wasted his first 100 days. Personally I think he's a coward - but I question who wouldn't be in that position with his family held hostage by (who knows. I found it very pecular that the Generals in Iraq were protected by Blackwater and not Rangers).

I fear Hilary, but I still fear the Republicans more. The Republicans are more honest in that they don't pretend to be working for the people.

The entire congress is for Wallstreet and trades deals, the only things the fight about is what they can get out of it for themselves. The only real differenc in the parties when it comes to right and left is on social issues. When it comes to trade and such they are all right of center and pro buisness. Sure you have people who like to portray Obama as left or a socialist but, all it takes is the ability to read to see he makes Reagan look like a lefty. Nobody in Congress or the White House is pushing to help the people directly, its alwasy about making like for corporations better and somehow hoping that will translate to better things for the population. Something we have seen fail time and time again. We have nobody like Teddy Roosevelt looking out for the people and seeing companies had to be forced to the right thing or they would always choose profit first over everything including safety. Of course Teddy would branded a socialist or a communist today by the same poorly educated people who toss the word around with Obama. Today being for the people is communist it seems, being in it for coporartions is Amrican way now.