General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPres. Obama tells Dems, on TTP: "Get informed, not by reading the Huffington Post"
...but, details the actual text of this 'corporate Trojan horse' have been mostly negotiated in secret, from Congress - although hundreds of corporate representatives have been reported having access to the details, like Halliburton.
PHILADELPHIA – President Obama on Thursday asked wary House Democrats to hold their fire, while the administration negotiates several trade deals opposed by scores of liberal lawmakers.
“Keep your powder a little dry,” he told the Democrats assembled here for an annual retreat, according to a source in the closed-door session.
"Get informed," Obama also advised, "not by reading The Huffington Post.
"The impact on the paychecks of America’s workers is the standard that we will use," Rep. Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.
Fielding private questions from the Democrats after a fiery speech before the caucus Thursday, Obama tried to defuse those concerns, saying his administration will make a "substantive case" for the new pacts.
"We share same values and are looking out for the same people," he said, according to the source.
read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/231238-obama-tells-dems-to-keep-their-powder-dry-in-trade-fight
related:
Sen. Sanders in a Jan 5, 2015 letter (pdf) to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.
"I am very concerned that, to this date, the text of this agreement has not been made public. The only text I'm aware of, so far, that has been made public has been through leaked documents, and I find what I read to be very troubling.
‘It is incomprehensible to me that the leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP while, at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge as to what is in it,’
‘Members of Congress must have the opportunity to read what is in the TPP and closely analyze the potential impact this free trade agreement would have on the American people long before the Senate votes to give the President fast track trade promotion authority.’
Please explain why you think it's appropriate that the representatives of the largest financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies; oil companies; media conglomerates; and other major corporate interests not only have access to some of these documents, but also are playing a major role in developing many of the key provisions in it. Meanwhile, the people who will suffer the consequences of this treaty have been shut out of this process..."
read entire letter: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/letter-to-united-states-trade-representative?inline=file
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Although a quick perusal of today's headlines tells me the breathless news that Howard Stern has never farted in front of his wife.
Front Page. Yes, Indeedy.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...the president insinuated there's some official source for that information. The record (and numerous accounts from critical members of Congress) shows that's not the case with the details of this trade pact.
There are a lot of folks in Washington that want to know what is in this, as well as a lot of folks OUTSIDE of Washington that want to know what is in this.
The only people that know what is in it are the "need to know" crowd, which, unsurprisingly, are the only beneficiaries of it (screw-ers). Those that don't "need to know" are the screw-ees. Which includes just about everyone that isn't a well-placed DC politician, CEO of a global corporation, or a well-heeled/well-connected Wall Street financier and donor.
I'm not the first one to say this, either, but rubes will be rubes if they blindly trust on this one. I'm a bit too seasoned to fall for this one.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)let's see some drafts so the American people can see what is being negotiated.
I don't think that is too much to ask.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)trying to do that for years now, but even members of the Trade Committee have been DENIED access to these secret deals?
Unless of course, those Dems are lying.
Fine, we would all like to be informed, what he just said to Dems is ludicrous considering they have asked over and over again for the opportunity to inform themselves.
Did he give them access to what WOULD inform them after saying this, or was it just a snide remark intended to deflect from the secret nature of these 'deals'?
whathehell
(29,034 posts)I wish someone would tell him that. 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)opportunity, some have not.
They merely have take the time to sit in the secure room to do it. Apparently Elizabeth Warren did so.
2naSalit
(86,324 posts)because he was in the front of the "this is a sellout" line.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)access for YEARS. So could you please link to something that backs up your contention, or implication that all these Dems have been lying for the past five years or so?
We have seen the leaks. I am talking about Congress's RIGHT to not only have access to any agreement being negotiated by the US, but they also have to right to have INPUT on behalf of the American people, since they, not Global Corps, represent us.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)committeepersons have rights to copy and share, apparently.
Other members of Congress have the right to review, but must abide by the security procedures. This has caused some consternation.
You really don't help your argument when you aren't accurate--
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that they can't even take notes.
If it is that damn secure, it has some stinky language and legislation in it.
"Security procedures" as an excuse might fly for people that aren't on a political website (such as DU) but the rest aren't really that dumb, MsAnthrope. You hide things that are ugly, because in politics, you display them openly if they are beautiful. You perfume bullshit and prevent those that can smell the bullshit the ability to analyze the odor.
You know that, I know that, and I'd hate to have you as my lawyer if you are that naive.
But we both know that you aren't, so speak up like the intelligent woman you are. You've actually shot yourself down worse in this thread than anything, and it makes me sad. You are a very smart woman, and I know sometimes you have to defend the indefensible, but if you have to do it here even on a message board, it's worse than I thought. 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Iran negotiations. And probably standard for every other piece of legislation with national security issues. What amazes me is how few people on this political website actually know how the government works.
Given the national security issues--which you seem to simply ignore in your consideration---I'm not surprised people aren't allowed to take notes.
Tell me, Aerows---given the national security risks vis-à-vis Russia and China, how would you manage and privacy of the 500?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)has the high-security of managing nuclear weapons talks, that tells me that there is danger, people don't want it to get out, and the people that don't want it to get out aren't dwellers on Main Street, or even First Street suburbia.
I mean really, nuclear weapons talks are less important with regards to security than discussions over a trade agreement?
How stupid do the people that are behind the TPP think the American people are, exactly? Do we have "DUMB" inscribed on our foreheads?
The Wall Street and Political set has done SO MUCH for everyone but themselves for the last 30 years.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)concerns?
Think we might be concerned about a Chinese or Russian hack?
Yeah--they have to walk their asses to the Winder Building. Big deal. f
Aerows
(39,961 posts)since the documents are too sealed for anyone to know, since you can't take notes, can't have any security violated, right? It's like asking if someone violated national secrets and then they can't defend themselves in court because it could disclose national secrets.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't and damned anyway because ... security.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)precautions to keep them secret... Or they can read'em on Google, like anyone else on the planet.
Something doesn't make sense here, by my little brain's not equipped to find the problem.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)who our trade partners are is on the google.
You seem to be conflating two different things here, Manny, which might explain your confusion.
The names of the countries we are dealing with are public knowledge.
The drafts of the agreements are not.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that Congressional staffers can't review the unadulterated bill and members of Congress can't even take NOTES?
Are we back to "national security, you can't view it" but "everybody knew about it already" again?
Please.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)at all.
So you don't think Ted Cruz's staffers should review them, and you also think Alan Grayson's staffer's shouldn't either.
Tell me - if there is something in there that is so detrimental that people on opposite sides of the political spectrum shouldn't be allowed to fully vet and validate those documents ... and what about people in the middle, either?
Or is it just the "club TPP" folks that should be the only ones in the know about it, allowed to take notes, and allowed to scrutinize the bill with staffers, which you, as you well know, all have security clearance?
What's the problem? Is it National Security, Politics, or that the TPP plain sucks is the issue here? The American people, I'm sure, would like to know.
Oh wait. It's on Google (against national "security" policy). Well that gives everybody involved in the secrecy of openly discussing this a pass. Except it doesn't.
Pardon my confusion as to why you seem to think this is a national security issue.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)whose privacy and security we are obliged to protect. This trade deal has caused a great deal of angst to China and Put in (I am assuming you read the foreign press) and we are vulnerable to security breaches....as are our partners.
I don't see you clamoring about transparency about the Iran negotiations. Why not???
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"the google" as a way to dodge the question of why members of Congress and their staffers with security clearance can't scrutinize the documents.
If I remember correctly, you are against the leak of security sensitive documents, so why you would invite others to violate that security puzzles me.
Do you respect that privacy, and security that we are obligated to protect, or don't you, because something might be on "the google"?
A little clarification with regard to "Yes, I care" or "No, I do not care" would be helpful. After all, you were the one that brought up "the google."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)to cut through the BS and trounce bad arguments up one side and down the other.
It's Sunday. I guess I could go for six ways today.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and everyone else that isn't in the committee to thrust this through aren't able to, either.
If it is good legislation, it stands up to scrutiny. If it can't then you are left wondering what is good about it.
I elected people to represent me - they can't represent me if they have shadow machinations that prevent my representatives in the legislature from having needed information to do so.
I know you know this - I'm just reminding you that a hell of a lot of tax-paying citizens also know this, and right after paying property taxes, it isn't exactly the time to be trying to dictate to the people who fund, elect and vote.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Really pathetic response to honest direct questions. That you feel the need to defend, through any kind of specious reasoning, the indefensible as in influential political powers -corporate and presidential -that don't want this far reaching trade pact to be openly debated speaks volumes about your agenda.
think
(11,641 posts)there was transparency.
If the people who are pushing for the TPP agreement are saying that the public would be opposed to it if they knew what was in it, how is this good policy for the American people?
I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Administration's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. I believe in transparency and democracy and I think the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should too.
From the article:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/12035523456/senator-warren-if-tpp-transparency-would-lead-to-public-opposition-then-policy-is-wrong.shtml
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If the people knew about the TPP surely they would be opposed to it. But the authors of the TPP want it to remain secret because they do not want to see mounting public opposition.
The TPP and TTIP creators know full well that the American people would never support such "trade deals".
Do we still have democracy or not? Do TPTB now have 100% control? We know it is close. We know our elected representatives no longer really represent our interests.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Trade Committee has been screaming for years to try to gain access to this agreement.
I suppose they are 'inaccurate'. Didn't know it was right in front of them??
Not to mention that the little they did manage to drag out of those trying to keep it secret, DUE TO ALL THE DEMANDS and criticisms, not just from this country, but from all 12 of the countries involved.
You think those countries' people are happy their governments are hiding these negotiations from them? Selling THEM perhaps, as close slave labor to Global Corps.
These objections are not just happening here in the US.
Legislators from all 12 Countries have written a demand that their Reps be allowed to access these 'secret' trade deals.
As for Warren? She is on the record as stating that she has been told by members of Congress that the reason why these deals are being kept secret is 'because if the public knew what was in them, they would be opposed to them'. Ron Wyden said that also.
Is our government DEAF when it comes to those they serve?? Too bad they don't treat Corporations the same way they treat the people who pay them.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Obama is to make more.
The real root cause here is that Americans want cheap labor to make cheap stuff so they can flock to Walmart to buy said cheap stuff. Cheap stuff is an American birth right, fuck the workers and their labor exploitation by capital!
Consumers in America have been conditioned to believe their incredibly cheap food and consumer goods and trinkets are God-given rights, they are unconcerned or unaware of the price being paid by others half a world away or toiling on California farms or even in the very haunts of the Walmart Shopper consumer paradise.
The price for a nation whose economy is hooked on consumer spending is low wage workers everywhere, from production to transport to retail sales. Until the protests are led by the Walmart shopper, all resistance is futile or meaningless incremental gain.
American consumers are not concerned about low wages overseas at all, they just want cheap stuff.
Higher wages at home and abroad means soaring prices at home. Like the drug war where the American consumer is the root cause of the imbalance and human misery, the root cause of world human misery due to low wages is the America and Western consumer.
How will TPP make any difference one way or the other?
The only reason America can run massive trade deficits year after year for forever is it has the world reserve currency it uses to purchase unlimited amounts of cheap stuff to stock the warehouses for the demanding, addicted Citizens United in wanting cheap stuff.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to write our LAWS.
You seem to be acknowledging that the laws now being written for the US by Global Corporations will continue and expand the cheap labor policies of third world nations to the US.
You are correct, not only will it do that, it will lower the wages of Americans, already so low, see Walmart, that workers need Public Assistance just to survive.
So iow, this agreement will 'level the playing field' for CORORATIONS who want to do business HERE. It will allow them to pollute our environment even further, giving them the means to get around our environmental laws.
How ANYONE can in any WAY support the handover of what amounts to our SOVEREIGNTY to Global Corporations, leaving our Congress basically powerless, is just simply miind-boggling to me.
And you ask people to 'just trust us, things are bad anyhow'???
I have no more words to express what others have done far better than I, regarding anyone willing to condone this handing over of our country to Global Corps, and merely to further enrich the worst polluters, slave laborers and war profiteers on the planet right now.
As has been said regarding the Global Coup, already in Europe, 'it is worse than an invading army sweeping through land, grabbing everything, enslaving populations'.
The new way to take over countries, is Economic Terrorism, and that is what this amounts to.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That is capitalism. The same Americans would blame the others who can't find jobs as lazy and choosing to be unemployed.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)What you say about consumer goods is simply untrue.
Anyone bought a pair of shoes lately? The quality is pure crap and the price is not the least bit cheaper than when these once profitable American businesses were removed to foreign shores.
One thing I am very familiar with are the common plastic bass fishing lures—crank baits. The owners moved the entire production to Mexico following the NAFTA trade agreement. Now the price of these fishing lures is higher than ever.
The same is true of textiles, home appliances and furniture. The quality has gone down and in many instances the price has gone up.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)would be like the Old Confederacy—gone with the wind.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)there isn't enough out there for me to get het up about just yet. There are certainly concerns. But there are also advantages to a trade agreement that Russia and China don't like.
Like all Obama policies, I've chosen to wait and see, and read. Just because a source is "left" doesn't mean they are correct.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,129 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)illegal documents released on Google for information. National security, we already knew this, and so forth.
If our legislators have to go to Google to review "illegal, classified" documents on a trade agreement, we are in a hell of a lot of trouble as a nation.
That argument was made in this very thread by a very intelligent DUer that is well-informed on law.
The sheer desperation in the tone of those who want to make this "trade agreement" sound above-board and beneficial to 99% of the people in our country should be reason enough to doubt it will help anyone other than the most well-connected, well-heeled of politicians, financiers and socialites.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)I can't imagine the argument would be the same. The "D" behind the name makes all sorts of difference.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Rooting for the home team is the thing that has hurt us the most.
TPTB understand our nature and use it against us.
We must evaluate our candidates and elected representatives on the basis of their actions alone.
We must be ultra-diligent or forever suffer the consequences when they enact laws that are against our interests.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I don't know about you but I am going to redouble my efforts to tell people about the harmful nature of the TPP and related trade deals.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which they have been asking for THEIR right and OURS to have access to these GLOBAL, not just domestic, but Global plans for this country. Which he knows.
Yes, it is annoying, but indicative of what those in the DC Bubble think of the people of this country. They really do think we are too stupid to bother with.
THEY know what is good for us. Very Paternal of them.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)they imagine that their long term plans for us, and the people of the world, are just wonderful.
Unfortunately they are under a grave misunderstanding. Just what evidence are they basing all their confidence on? For over a decade everything they have done turns out to have negative consequences.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I just can't understand endorsing the TPP without knowing what is in it, which seems to be on a "need to know" basis, and the only people that benefit from it are the ones that know.
If you know everything about it, I would hope you would share it with the rest of us plebes. If not, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "TPP rocks!" bandwagon. Many folks aren't as well connected as they think they are.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and some have not. We will see it when it's done, and under fast track (which allows for up and down votes with no amendments) we will have 90 days to read and lobby.
A few, like Grayson and Sanders have bemoaned the fact that they don't sit on the relevant committees, and therefore, their staff can't have access, and they can't distribute copies. But nothing prevents them from reading it themselves.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Now don't go teasing us if you have some insider knowledge. Do you?
Staff. Hmmm. Yep, I can see that being tricky, because if you can't have a full staff review, can't take notes on it to evaluate it and check with members of your staff that are more finely tuned in evaluating legality and language, I could see how that could become problematic for members of Congress that regularly rely on staff to form a position.
I wonder why nobody wants folks that regularly rely on staff to form a position, to give an educated, legal and well-rounded body of information to members of Congress that want to know what is in the agreement?
It sounds like there are things hidden in it, and not just pure old bullshit politics. It sounds like pure old bullshit, period. I'm sure you are familiar with the difference between the two.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)This article was used for a source on a DU OP--
“Senator Sanders, like all Members of Congress, has full access to the draft TPP negotiating text and we look forward to working with him to review it," USTR spokesman Trevor Kincaid said. "Members of Congress, labor unions, non-profits, and environmentalists have all played an important role in shaping our approach to our trade policy. This includes Senator Sanders, whose input USTR has received on a dozen occasions on issues ranging from clean energy manufacturing to cheese."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/bernie-sanders-michael-froman-tpp_n_6419874.html
And as to sharing with staff--I can only tell you from my previous experience in Washington that that's why Congress has these things called committees....so that you don't have 535 members and their staffs working on everything. Judiciary works on Judicary, and the like.
Here, you have non-committeepersons whining that they can't share stuff with staff. Well, yeah--that's kinda the point of the committee system. This is sharks, complaining about the chum.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'm assuming you don't bet the farm on every prospectus that crosses your desk, but you do allow your financial adviser to provide you with informational fine points, right?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'd never have to go Costco again.
This analogy doesn't really work for me, because I am not the average investor.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I couldn't wager with lives and paychecks in my hands without due diligence. It's not my nature to leave those in my employ and my own family high and dry because I decided I knew best and didn't take the proper steps to validate whether I am making a good investment.
I'm too cautious for that. I'm certain there are members of Congress that feel a responsibility to their constituents that are also too cautious for that. And they should be. They have responsibilities, and shouldn't be forced to vote blindly on a bill that could prove detrimental to the people they are representing.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Even under fast track, Congress is gonna have 90 days to look at a completed bill they should have already read in draft form. Plenty of time for whingeing.
I'm just not made that way. I hope to hell the majority of Congress isn't, either. Or the White House. Gambling on the future of 300 million people with a bill that may or may not completely disrupt our economy is not something I would ever just roll the dice on.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...this, with a republican majority in Congress.
Fast track makes a lie out of all of your admonitions that Congress will be able to manage the trade pact legislation in our interest; especially this republican Congress.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I don't want this Republican Congress amending anything.
Straight up or down.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Wow. Throw all the dice on red and hope for the best.
That is a very dangerous way of governing. 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Not on this trade deal.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)since nobody seems to know what is in it. No, the best way to kill the ability of Republicans to amend it is to do away with it altogether. I've yet to read about any benefits it provides to anyone other than high-rollers. I don't bet against high-rollers, because I prefer to keep things honest, to use your metaphor.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...pure and simple; no ifs, ands, or buts.
Most folks here understand that the amendment process, although it works both ways, is the ONLY real and meaningful influence our legislators have in the minority on legislation.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)fast track removes cloture.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)It's clear where you stand...vote up or down, you say - no actual input from Democratic legislators, except for a limited debate and final vote on a signed trade pact.
Got it...democracy, y'all. America.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)being offered by Democrats that will get a cloture vote?
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...I'm not wasting any more time with all of the dissembling, diverting nonsense. You've made your position clear.
...democracy, y'all. America.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)and nobody is given an adequate amount of time to evaluate it, then we don't need one.
What's the big hurry, what's with all the secrecy and why is it necessary in the first place if the very body that has to vote on it can't read it?
If our representatives in Congress can't even read it and take some notes, it seems too shady to even try to pass in the first place.
I'm not going to apologize for being the kind of person that prefers to check that the "i"'s are dotted and the "t"'s are crossed.
It rather surprises me that you would advocate such a position.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...the rationale for the autocratic negotiations from the Executive branch being that the pesky legislators will look to impose their individual will on the legislation. It's no accident or coincidence that all sorts of changes to law which have little to do with actual trade are stacked in the bill, in this instance, with dozens of corporations with hundreds of corporate representatives allowed to view the language in the treaty and influence many of the key provisions before Congress even has a say.
All of that is coupled with the administration's push for fast-track which would allow the President to sign the treaty before our legislators approve it and limit debate and bar any amendment or changes. It's a insidious betrayal of our democratic process of law. It's that very anti-democratic process, in the past, which produced trade agreements which are unrepresentative of what the American public wants and supports.
Of course, there are those who believe our input into the political process should be nothing more than a thumbs-up, or a thumbs-down, ignoring the very basic tenets of advocacy and activism; disregarding our voices in favor of 'experts' and 'professionals' who will tell us what's good for us.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)hit the nail on the head. You said it far better than I did in this thread, so thank you!
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...You're bending and twisting to claim that our Democratic legislators will have the opportunity to negotiate what's in the legislation, but you're advocating fast-track - claiming you don't want republicans amending it, but ignoring the fact that Democratic legislators won't be able to influence the pact either.
Your argument loses ALL credibility by supporting fast-track authority where the President first SIGNS the trade pact, then sends it to Congress for what is essentially an up or down vote. You can't have it all ways, msanthrope. Either you accept that our Democratic legislators deserve input into the trade pact, or agree with the administration that they should be, essentially, shut out of the process.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Our Democratic legislators, like every single member of Congress have been able to review the agreement, and raise issues with the committee and the USTR, just as Sanders did about cheese....per the Constitution.
This is how representative democracy works....and has worked on every single bilat.
I don't want anyone to amend it....straight up or down, and then it's done. I think reasonable people can disagree on that point without losing their comity, though. Why not try that?
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...who have had the ability to actually help craft the trade agreement.
So, in your view (and the administration's), our Democratic legislators should have ZERO actual input, but rather, be allowed to merely 'review' the draft and see the final, SIGNED trade pact before voting alongside a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in both houses.
That's some goddamned shit there...democracy, y'all. America.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Throw it out.
It obviously has some bullshit problems that are being glossed over in an attempt to keep it from even being scrutinized.
That tells me right there that a hell of a lot of people will get screwed by it, but the handful that are raging to get it sewn up and passed will be the beneficiaries of said screwing.
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)get to write sweeping laws which they refuse to allow our Legislative Body to even have a peek at for YEARS. Not even the Congressional Committee that is charged with over-seeing Trade Agreements.
After years of protests not just in this Country, but in all of the other 12 countries involved in this 'secret agreement'. the project is slowed down.
So then, these Global Corps condescend to ALLOW our Representatives to take a tiny peek at a tiny part of what they are up to.
Now we know, thanks to Wikileaks, that they ARE up to no good, for the American people.
The tiny peek they ALLOWED our Congress to see, are carefully selected, only due to the pressure FROM THE PEOPLE and from LEGISLATORS from ALL 12 Nations.
When did our Congress lose the power invested in it to Represent the people who elected them, and who handed that power over to Foreign Corporations?
Congress does NOT have access to this secret abomination. They were ALLOWED to take a peek at carefully selected parts of it, thanks to the PEOPLE and LEGISLATORS who RIGHTFULLY are OUTRAGED at Foreign Corporations determining the future of the American People.
And they will continue to be outraged until our Congress is allowed to do its job.
You are perfectly free to 'bet on red' anytime you want to.
But not with our money, jobs, homes, economy, SOVEREIGNTY or our rights.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they founded today. Though not surprised, as they warned about what would happen if we didn't protect the democracy they created. Sad, but not surprised.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)how a good DUer with the history of MsAnthrope of fairness, intelligence and equability went all out on the defense for this.
It actually makes me sad.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)Says it all...
In all my wildest prayers, I hope the dice roll black for you.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Sanders is not releasing it, which kind of makes critiquing Sanders and others opinions impossible.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)can't have members of their staff evaluate it, and pretty much have to rely on reading a huge document of nearly 2,000 pages and committing it to memory to make a decision.
Yeah, that sounds ...
that sounds unreasonable and sounds like an attempt to ram something through without adequate evaluation of it.
When was the last time you sucked up 2,000 pages of a contract without even being able to take notes and came away with the feeling that you knew everything, read all the fine print, and knew all of the ramifications and consequences of said contract?
Yeah, me neither.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)Based on that, I give Huffpo a lot of credit for improving quickly. 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)a press release accurately.
Did you read the Howard Stern story?
merrily
(45,251 posts)linked to a Huffpo article that someone had posted on DU.
If Huffpo is so bad, why assume they got it right?
annabanana
(52,791 posts)(very good)
merrily
(45,251 posts)If you liked that, you might like Reply 146 too.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)What kind of slick trick are you up to, msanthrope?
What are you hiding?
You, with all your "information" that you learned from "publicly available sources".
Sheesh.
Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Or the part where this argument has now devolved to whose staffer gets to Xerox documents?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)So many who consider themselves to be politically astute are anything but.
Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)transparency on the Iran negotiations. ....why is that?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Because I was about to read this article, but now I know they are not a good source for information.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/obama-budget-middle-class-economics_b_6570948.html?1422544154
I mean, just because it was penned by someone calling themselves Barack Obama, and they advertise him as the 44th President of the United States is no reason to think that this is in any way a good source of information.
Pfui.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Do you deny this, Msanthrope?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Effectively, Congress has no access to the provisions of the corporate-authoritarian monstrosity they are supposed to approve.
In fact, what we know about it is thanks to those people who do the right thing and leak the details.
You won't get any substantive reply.
Very few people here are able to apologize for saying completely wrong things. Especially not since right or wrong sadly isn't the point.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If you can't even take notes or bring along an expert that can parse the fine details.
I consider that "here's a peak, see, you read it and I'm not responsible if you don't understand all 2,000+ pages of it in the hour you are granted!"
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 1, 2015, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)
for not electing someone better.
Never mind why it is fine and dandy for Monsanto to have 24/7 access with live updates and it isn't just the top brass but their experts. Fucking muckraker their is bread to be made, Jack!
Why are you a racist, isolationist, America hater who has thrown in with the Republicans with these questions?!?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"Doh" ...
But really, Dough! to be made and all these damn questions are impeding progress - we need to wait to see what is in it before we criticize it, and if it is too late to do anything about it, well, at least the fleecing got done before the shee .. I mean the naysayers could prevent the wool from getting pulled over ... I mean going to market.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts) sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)access to these negotiations for years now? He gave the impression that despite the fact that their demands for access to the information they need to properly represent the people who elected them, they should somehow, magically 'inform themselves' without the information they need to do so.
So now, he didn't tell it like it is, because that is not how it is.
If he doesn't want people getting information from Huffpo, the solution is simple, give the Trade Committee what they have been asking for so long now. Did he do that?
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)It has been portrayed as the worst thing since the 7th layer of Hell.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to Internet freedom and the Environment, and it isn't good. It's a shame that Congress has had to rely on leaks to have a clue about what is being done without their participation.
How input has the Trade Committee been allowed to have in all of this? THEY are our Reps, not Global Corporations, well that is what we have been led to believe, maybe we are wrong about that too.
I don't think Ron Wyden is lying when he states that he has been denied access to these negotiations despite his right to that information?
whathehell
(29,034 posts)
sabbat hunter
(6,827 posts)are done in secret, not just TPP. It doesn't mean we shouldn't know all we can about it ASAP though
Aerows
(39,961 posts)The TPP will have wide-sweeping consequences for approximately 2 billion people. The 2 billion people it will affect should know what in the hell they are trying to pass!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)... come out strongly against it.
The Democrats that I trust have done this.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)every member of Congress has the right to review the drafts.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If you know everything about it, it would benefit all of us if you would enlighten us. If not, I'm going with the idea that not everyone "is as well-connected as they think they are" theory.
That also includes DC politicians, and ... their staffers.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)with varying degrees of clearance as to what they can do with the drafts.
Read Bernie Sander's letter....he has access, he's just pissed his staff doesn't.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Members of Congress don't operate in a singular bubble, and they aren't the end all be all of experts on everything under the sun. That's why they have staff members. When they can't take notes, and have staff members more technically informed to the legality, language and consequences of specific points of law, it gelds them out of the gate.
So, yes, I'd be upset, too. Would you want President Obama to make a judgement on something in a vacuum? Or would you prefer he had advisers to give him granular observations and information?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Aerows....this is how Congress chose to set up how they do business. Committees restrict certain actions to members. Non-committee persons are restricted as to what they may influence....
This is what keeps Ted Cruz in check. This is the system Congress has set up....and their whining is like sharks complaining about the chum.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)taxi to the Winder Building if they can't walk their asses over.
Yes---this isn't anything unusual, Aerows. This is how security works. Try researching something at the National Archives sometime.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)They can't share any of the information with the public.
I'm not even sure to what extent they can share it with others who are educated in the numerous areas that this Agreement apparently tackles. So, to what extent can our Congresscritters get the feedback they need on various provisions in order to best represent their constituents (I know, that's funny).
The process for the TPP is highly secretive and completely unacceptable.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)national security aspects of this trade deal.
First of all, committees are run like this. All committees in Congress restrict access....it's how you keep people like Ted Cruz's staffers from getting their fingers into every pie. Second, we are negotiating this with most of the Pacific Rim, and China and Russia are upset about it---so we kinda have to be secretive.
We can't see the negotiations with Iran for good reason, too.
Why do you think the Congresscritters on the committee aren't able to access experts?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)and beyond "trade" issues. If that's the case then the secrecy involved is simply unacceptable.
I believe this is probably true based on a number of leaks and reports. The TPP is apparently massive in scope.
I haven't been informed that "our" Congresscritters were able to share the various aspects of the massive Agreement with experts from the various fields that this Agreement involves. They would need to talk with quite a few different people from a number of different fields of expertise if the TPP is anything like what's been reported in scope.
If Fast Track is granted, TPP is a done deal, and I just don't think Congress will be able to successfully understand all of the ramifications of what's included without a more open and transparent process. Multinational corporate interests are consolidating their power globally, and it would be foolish (imo) to allow for this trade agreement to pass without feedback from us (citizens of the U.S). I'm sorry to see you feel otherwise and are willing to trust Congress (including LOTS of Republicans) with the passage of this. Multinational corporate interests are clamoring for this to pass. There's lots of red flags and you are simply willing to allow this to get implemented before we get a chance to see what it entails. I just think that's a foolish position to take.
I think you're lucky to believe that we still live in a country with a "very democratic Congress" too. Very lucky.
And, we'll have to disagree about the level of secrecy that's needed when dealing with "trade" issues (and all of the other issues that this Agreement apparently includes).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)acceptable. Don't forget how many other countries are involved and how badly Russian and China want this deal to sink.
USTR and Congress have been able to share pieces and get information with a body of about 500 experts and sources--Labor, Trade Experts, Business.
Fast track is up or down votes with no amendments. I like that. And yes, there are lots of red flags that need to be explored, but I take Krugman's view on this---meh to maybe there's a problem.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)...
"There are reasons to support these deals and reasons to oppose them. But my immediate take is that when the US Chamber of Commerce makes a huge priority out of complicated deals, and offers an obviously false rationale, you should strongly suspect that there’s bad stuff hidden in the fine print."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/19/suspicious-nonsense-on-trade-agreements/
Reading this blog post makes me think that Krugman is suspicious that there's bad stuff in there. I mean he pretty much says exactly that. I don't get that he's still for its passage based on this blog post, but that isn't completely clear. He clearly has strong suspicions about the Agreement though.
And, he explicitly mentions the "non-trade" aspects of the Agreement that I have so much of a problem with regarding all of the secrecy that's been involved.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)shit because some Congressperson is complaining their staff members can't Xerox the documents.
There's a reason we have a representative democracy. I simply choose to get het up when there's something definite to get het up about.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)The agreement is a repuke's wet dream. Written by repukes, corporate CEOs and Obama. You so funny, msanthrope.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)That comment was absurd.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)everyone one that I have heard say it is the death of the America worker and American sovereignty ... immediately before, or afterwards, lament that the agreement is being NEGOTIATED (i.e., on-going discussions) in secret.
merrily
(45,251 posts)At DU, no one. It's in a secure room.
In Congress, there was a lot of complaining about secrecy and those complaints were publicized. However, apparently, at some point, I don't know when, the draft was put into a secure room.
You know, like the NIE re: the Iraq War that Hillary says she did not go to the secure room to read before urging her fellow Senators to vote for the invasion.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)"The security procedures" means that they don't really have access to it.
Fuck secret government.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)has been produced in secrecy. He wants Fast Track for the express purpose of eliminating reasonable debate WHERE PEOPLE COULD GET SMART ABOUT IT.
The Pres is very good at rhetoric.
malthaussen
(17,175 posts)Barack Obama talks purtier than just about anyone I've heard this century. When he gives a speech, millions orgasm. Possibly he is the best rhetorician to occupy the White House since Reagan.
-- Mal
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)you know, them, that control everything.
They're everywhere, the Oligarch Rulers.
Sid
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I'm flattered. But why don't I ever see you comment on an issue?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Could have fooled me and all the other people that watched our jobs disappear since the 1980s.
Clearly, it is a Race to the Bottom. This Race to the Bottom was created by and for the Oligarchs. That is just an inescapable fact.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
lark
(23,061 posts)as the president didn't tell it like it is at all. He was just pushing Dems to go along with him - well just because. He's the one that let the multinationalist reps negotiate this damn treaty, he's the one that refuses to let it be discussed in an open forum and makes you jump through hoops to even get to see it. Yes, he put in labor stds., then gave multinationals sovereignty over local government, so basically invalidated all the good stuff in there because profits rule all.
Trust me, says the snake oil seller.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)How arrogant..."Get informed"...Um HOW? The negotiations are being held IN SECRET....
Fucking Used Car Salesman...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)malthaussen
(17,175 posts)The POTUS's stand on the TPP and similar measures, and indeed his whole attitude of genuflecting towards Wall Street, is one of the reasons I am not a big fan of the man. I just cannot see how anyone rational could actually believe the ideological propaganda of the wealthy, therefore it seems to me that anyone who supports said ideology must be mendacious, and not simply unsophisticated.
-- Mal
madokie
(51,076 posts)is he doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve, neither does he give up his hand to satisfy a few, some of whom won't be satisfied no matter what he does. They just don't like him and will alway find something to complain about. The last 6 years has shown me and I'm sure him too that there is a lot of closeted racist people in this country. The next two years he'll be working using that knowledge to help guide him and things will be different. As you will have already seen to prove my point
I'd vote for him again in a heart beat.
For instance. all we heard for weeks even months from the mostly republiCON congress critters about how the only way to save SS was CPI from the congress, (other reasons too but that was one of them.) Finally O comes out with a plan, that btw wasn't ever expected to go anywhere by him, and his plan has CPI in it. Not one more word have I heard from the republiCONs about this since then except to say they're against doing that. Be honest with yourself and give the man a chance. He's led the way to allowing Gay marriage in lots of the places you wouldn't have ever guessed it would be allowed.
The last time I looked the number of people coming over illegally has dropped way way down from what it was during the cheney/little boots reign.
About amnesty. By giving these good american citizens, other than the one rub that they didn't come through the line to get here it puts them in the Social Security numbers and equal wages to us which is awesome in the fact that now the rich won't be able to use their illegal status as leverage to pay them anything much at all. Its a smart move for everyones benefit no matter what you do for a living. By giving these other wise good people full citizenship it raises your wages not lowers it. By being citizens their worth goes way up in the labor market.
Anyways what I'm getting at is the president has a point in telling the congress critters to come up to speed on TPP rather than them sitting back and saying its all being done in total secret. Its not but many chose to think it is. I mean the job of our congress critters is to look out for us but I've heard many use the excuse that well I didn't read the whole thing, its like some ungodly number of pages and I just never got the time, kind of shit. its all Obamas fault though, I do get that.
have a good day 
whathehell
(29,034 posts)and he's done some good things, but POTUS is too corporate, IMO, and the TPP stinks to
high heaven.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Well, it might remain effective but many millions of us are now highly suspicious.
madokie
(51,076 posts)open your eves and study this bill and you will find I haven't given away the farm. His reference to HP cemented the meaning to that message.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...like Rep. Jan Schakowsky was quoted in this article, "As it is right now … it would be unacceptable."
Maybe when the administration is more forthcoming about the details of the bill they'll be open to negotiating with members like Rep. Schakowsky and Minority Leader Pelosi to ensure that it's actually a 'wage' bill and not just another corporate giveaway.
madokie
(51,076 posts)it looks to me like its the fault of the congress critters to not be in the know, not that its being kept from them. Big difference between the two.
If our congress critters were doing their jobs like actually debating bills etc they wouldn't have time to take weeks upon weeks of vacation. I see the fault lies with the congress critters on all of this so many times false infomation we're being lead to believe. I've seen it happen more that once since he stepped in the oval office.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's available to hundreds of corporations BUT NOT TO CITIZENS. Wake up and smell the corptocracy.
madokie
(51,076 posts)I think he is still in good standing here with DU, he is a member.
Even though he never post anything anymore.
Trust me when I say I have a pretty good nose on me still
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)or rights to copy.
I think Grayson is bemoaning the fact he'd have to sit there and read it.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)in congress and be open for amendments. Why are you consumed with quibbling about irrelevant minutia of the restrictions on even reading the TPP? Who are you spinning for? You are totally ridiculous.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the drafts.
He does not sit on the committee, so he must abide by the security procedures.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...they weren't even allowed to see the draft until this summer. Also, members of Congress who were allowed to view more aren't allowed to reveal what they found to the public.
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch interview on Democracy Now!:
...Congress has all this authority. They’re supposed to be exclusively in control. But until this June, they were not even allowed to see the draft text.
And it was only after a big, great fuss was kicked up by a lot of members—150 of them wrote last year—that finally members of Congress, upon request for the particular chapter, can have a government administration official bring them a chapter. Their staff is thrown out of the room. They can’t take detailed notes. They’re not supposed to talk about what they saw. And they can, without staff to help them figure out what the technical language is, look at a chapter. This is in contrast to, say, even what the Bush administration did. The last time we had one of these mega-NAFTA expansion attempts was the Free Trade Area of the Americas. And in that instance, in 2001, that whole draft text was released to the public by the U.S. government on the official government websites. So, this is extraordinary secrecy, and members of Congress aren’t supposed to tell anyone what they’ve read. So, for instance, you know, Alan Grayson, who was one of the guys who helped to get the text released, Alan Grayson said, "I can tell you it’s very bad for the future of America. I just can’t tell you why."
Sen. Sanders in a Jan 5, 2015 letter (pdf) to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.
"I am very concerned that, to this date, the text of this agreement has not been made public. The only text I'm aware of, so far, that has been made public has been through leaked documents, and I find what I read to be very troubling.
‘It is incomprehensible to me that the leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP while, at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge as to what is in it,’
‘Members of Congress must have the opportunity to read what is in the TPP and closely analyze the potential impact this free trade agreement would have on the American people long before the Senate votes to give the President fast track trade promotion authority.’
Please explain why you think it's appropriate that the representatives of the largest financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies; oil companies; media conglomerates; and other major corporate interests not only have access to some of these documents, but also are playing a major role in developing many of the key provisions in it. Meanwhile, the people who will suffer the consequences of this treaty have been shut out of this process..."
read entire letter: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/letter-to-united-states-trade-representative?inline=file
That admonition from Sen. Sanders doesn't speak well to the administration's efforts to include Congress in the crafting of this legislation to the extent that they can make an informed decision on the pact and exert their constitutionally responsible influence on its provisions. Trust-based politics may well be fine for the American public, but when our legislators are shut out of the process of negotiating our nation's trade treaties, it borders on more than just malfeasance; it augers for an outcome unrepresentative of the will of the public.
madokie
(51,076 posts)meaning that the wording changes quiet often. At this point in drafting unless someone has spent so serious time with the drafters they wouldn't even know what they're being told. This will all be out in the open once its settled on what they think they want to accomplish. Once the debate really starts and everyone comes up to speed the end result will look nothing like some of the early drafts. You can't have 200 people working on the early stages of any legislation especially one of this magnitude. If this was a puke in the white house i'd be nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof but it isn't, I trust Obama to be looking out for me more than any one other person. I still say its up to the senators to do the leg work to stay informed.
This man has had to deal with doubt more than any president in recent history. Look at where we are today and where we were 6 years ago for an example.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...authority sought by the administration limiting debate and amendments.
Although fast-track authority expired in 2007, Pres. Obama is seeking to have it renewed. Fast- track authority would allow the president to sign the TPP before Congress has voted to approve it, and then push deal through Congress in only 90 days with limited debate and no amendments allowed.
I don't have that level of trust in the Obama administration to allow them to, essentially, unilaterally determine what's in the bill. It goes without saying that there should be zero trust in the republican Congress in looking out for our rights and interests.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It will remain unacceptable to those of us that want to preserve our rapidly declining standard of living.
Response to bigtree (Reply #8)
Enthusiast This message was self-deleted by its author.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)and just what are you inferring
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)coworkers and community? What job do you do that makes this a positive?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Glad he's standing up to those who think he is.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)in one of the biggest screwings in history. He had their backs and bailed them out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who has a right to see what is being negotiated with Global Corporations on our behalf?
I like our system where no branch of Government can act alone, in secret no matter how much good they think they are doing.
And Wyden has been denied access to what he has a right to see. If it's so great, and what we have seen so far from leaks, doesn't support that claim, why try to hide it from members of the Congressional Trade Committee? Why have THEY been refused access? Why are they not involved in the process? That is their job.
What input have the People's Representative had to this Agreement. Major Global Corps do not represent the American people, Congress does. Should we even have to say that?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you believe we should trust him on faith. That's neither democratic nor Democratic.
"I agree with him completely." Really? What a surprise.
"He has done nothing to think he's selling us down the river." Have you been paying attention. He has included major corporations which are not known to favor the 99%, in negations and not representatives of the 99%. Portions we've seen are "selling us down the river." Hello?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)part of that.
I don't need Obama to tell me what the goals are. You shouldn't either. Nor do I need anyone to tell me Obama should just walk away and say, "America has no intention of participating in the international trade in the future."
Trade is important to our future, unless we plan to return to an economy where we all are working in small mom-and-pop companies for peanuts. Truthfully, that's fine with me, but I don't think most Americans will be happy with the outcome.
If Obama's folks can't negotiate a good final deal to present to Congress, he won't endorse it.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)Nobody has said a fucking word about not participating in international trade. I heard the same crap about NAFTA, GATT/WTO, CAFTA, and all the other job killing trade deals when they were up for vote. After millions of jobs lost and trillions of dollars added to our growing trade deficit, I am hearing it again before TPP.
Say the word trade a dozen times and then say we can't put a wall up around the country and then say trade a dozen more times. Wash, rinse repeat, the same shit every time one of these corporate fake free trade deals comes around.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)THIS IS ABOUT WAAAAAY MORE THAN TRADE. It's a Trojan horse for corporate domination.
Sen Sanders says:
1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.
8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.
10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.
Pres Obama says, "Blindly trust me".
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)fuck that shit.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)good Democrat should. Blind faith is a conservative trait. Just sayin'.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)until we get real change. If you are ok with the status quo then you'll love Pres Obama and then on to H. Clinton-Sachs.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)One of his first actions as president was going to be renegotiating NAFTA in an effort to repair some of the damage. He did nothing.
I guess he was just being dishonest with the electorate. But at least we have him on film admitting NAFTA did a lot of damage to the American worker.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Since then I learned that my faith was misplaced. I no longer trust the President at all, in any way.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Other South American countries are expressing interest as well.
You guys need to start doing a little research, and quit blaming Obama for stuff you don't know anything about, or simply choose not to open your eyes.
Admittedly, it still needs to be a good agreement. I see no reason, at this point, to join those convinced it won't be a good agreement. It won't get passed if it's a cruddy deal.
BTW: Just because corporations might develop new markets and make more money does not make it a bad deal, especially if we tax the hell out of them and use that money for social programs.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm against it. We have every past trade agreement to look at as an example. They have one thing in common—they have harmed the American worker in the interest of corporate profit.
Won't get fooled again.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ain't because of NAFTA or Obama.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)this crusade to pass these trade deals, he will have contributed mightily to the Race to the Bottom. Because that is all these trade deals are, a Race to the Bottom. Anyone with a mere shred of honesty will admit it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)We aren't self-sufficient in this country, so we have to trade. Even if we were self-sufficient, I don't think we'd do well in the long run by saying the hell with the rest of the world. But, you can believe what you want.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Besides I have evidence to back up my assertions. All the corporations have is unlimited money and millions of paid lackeys willing to carry their water.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Those 10 points right? No reason to question the purveyors of those.
What do we do about the huge conspiracy of which Obama is clearly involved in?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Could be to a bad place. Worse than NAFTA.
But, as you may have gathered, my original post was not about the TPP, but about the tactics of the Hallelujuh Chorus.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'm not saying to just pass a bad deal.
I am saying, let's see what we (and the world, I'm not one of those jingoist/nationalists) can put together that might help everyone.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)As usual.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Tell ya' what though: Go right ahead and sacrifice your livelyhood for some greater good of raising living standards abroad. In a couple of lifetimes when it all evens out ( the US finally wins its race to the bottom ) you can feel really good for doing your part of having of trying to accomplish what all those wonky economists say is possible on paper. It would show good faith arguing on your part.
Full disclosure: This government should regard the US working class as more important than Asia's working class. There: I said it.
Here's another one; Your crowd is not going to shut up the economic populists, and if takes an intra-party war to purge the neoliberals: Bring it on.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Yay free trade!!!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)They don't have a good track record on honesty and integrity.
But then again, they do know a thing or two about organized crime.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Could you list them?
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)I don't need to do so.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)well.......... you're on your side and I'm on the people's side.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I have a lot of respect for all of you.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is disinformation? Do you know what's in the agreement? Why won't the president tell us how it will help us? Why is he afraid of reasonable debate in the Senate.
Blind faith isn't Democratic.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) frylock
(34,825 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)as to the nature of copyright extension with regard to the TPP...I don't blame Manny, but rather, his sources for this disinformation---
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550863
As you can see--blaming President Obama and the TPP for a piece of 16 year old legislation must have come from a source determined to spread disinformation. I do not blame Manny.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)than he's complicit in spreading disinformation in order to confuse and anger, willingly or unwillingly.
The reason why I stay out of any discussions regarding the TPP negotiations is because I just don't have access to the documents to form a solid opinion either way. I'll then have to rely on hearsay...and we know how much the Koch Bros and the GOP want to divide, in order to conquer, the Democratic "base", so I won't venture into those murky waters.
I trust this president up until he deserves losing that trust. So far, he hasn't. What I've seen this president do was work in the best interest of the People to the best of his ability - even going so far as to push E.O.s when it became apparent that Congressional Republicans were going to do everything they can to say "No!" while Senatorial Democrats didn't fight them all too hard.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)should be het up about.
But, as you can see from that exchange.....I will be keeping my powder dry.
Recursion, an excellent poster on this site, and Krugman are two sources I take pretty seriously.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Representatives of the People, turn into 'quacks' all of a sudden? Should we not vote for them anymore?
How about the Global Corporations who are writing this Agreement, are they Representing the American people, now that all our Dems have turned into 'quacks'??
Do you actually know the history of this issue or are you really seriously calling our Democratic Reps 'quacks'?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)outrage over secret negotiations over trading democracy for theocracy, where no close to being a liberal is present, only Christofascists and media sympathizers allowed?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #94)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Marr
(20,317 posts)That sentiment, 'I trust the president, sight unseen', is pretty much the defining characteristic of an authoritarian.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)other Democrats who have been kept in the dark about this 'agreement'. I trust the combined number of good Democrats and Economists, not to mention that thanks to some Whistle Blowers, we have seen some of what is there and it confirms the statements made by all those who have voiced their opposition.
There would be no need for anyone to be arguing over this if the Dems request to simply give them access, which they have a RIGHT TO, it is an outrage that OUR REPS in Congress have been denied what is their right as part of their duty to the American people.
If it's so great, why the big effort to just 'get it passed' without allowing even those who are entitled to be a part of this process, to see it?
You don't have to be a great detective to know when someone fights so hard to hide something, there is generally a reason for that.
Just give the American people the information they need to decide if these Global Corporations who are writing this agreement, are working in their best interests.
Why would ANYONE object to that?
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)was the practical content of your response to a specific post.
Further, we can extrapolate that the Chamber of Commerce, Congressional Republicans, and the top people in the world's top 500 or so corporations are "the good guys" and their interests are our interests, correct?
What is it you trust Obama on here? What has he asserted about the provisions of this agreement for you to trust him about?
What is being stated by critics that he categorically states to be false?
Sounds like to me the matter was not allowed to come to a question of trust because faith was vested before any issues and concerns were contested.
There is no debate on the issues, the correct position is whatever Obama's is. The recent history of such efforts be damned, THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT because Obama who's mere presence turns a bunch of corporate crooks into Angels of goodness and mercy.
This time the Chamber of Commerce is looking out for workers and the environment...because Obama.
This time Congressional Republicans are looking out for America...because Obama.
Childish, religious like devotion to any politician is tomfoolery.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)I think it's more devotion to seeing their own bread is buttered and their own gang's bread.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Global Corporations, while Liberals, Democrats, and everyone else have been denied access to information about it. Congress, they have a RIGHT to this information. Ron Wyden and the rest of the Trade Committee have a RIGHT to it but for years have been denied that right.
You are not seriously claiming that this is okay are you?
I imagine the outrage would be even greater if Bush were doing this and Congress was pushed aside, disrespected, rendering them unable to the job WE elected them to do.
How can Liberals or anyone else, have 'representation' as you claim, when those representing them cannot get the information they need in order to do so.
Global Corporations do not represent the American people. You trust these Corporations to do what is best for the people of this country? Seriously. Politicians are politicians, not a single one of them, no matter how much we may like them, should, as Thomas Jeffereson said, 'be trusted'. Not even, he said, himself! That was good advice. And especially when they are hiding something and asking us to just 'trust us'. Sorry.
Now if there is something else as egregious as allowing Global Corps to secretly plan the future of the American people, then start another thread about it. Then we will focus on that issue and express all the outrage it deserves.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Trade negotiations are by nature secret, they have to be.
What is happening now is no different than the trade treaty with South Korea or NAFTA or any other since time immemorial.
You may disagree with the outcome, when it comes, but you can not alllege the process to now is somehow illegal and unprecedented.
Obama has his eye on it, I heard what he said about it and I will wait and see, as he asks.
The Warrior for the Middle Class is not dismounting over this.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)classes is Sen Sanders and he says that the TPP will harm the lower classes.
On one hand you have lots of people providing facts on how the TPP is dangerous and on the other hand you have the President saying "Have Faith, trust me". Open-minded people want facts and not to give blind allegiance. I would love to believe that this will help the 99%, but it's been fashioned by major corporations that have only one goal, to make more money.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)
madfloridian
(88,117 posts) 
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Senator Sanders, really?
840high
(17,196 posts)
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I just can't accept that the President would do anything to hurt people in this country. He can't blurt out what he's doing because all countries haven't agreed or haven't signed up yet, nor have they asked to be.
I think he wants them all to be part of TPP all at the same time, and this is only my thinking, that every country that comes on board at the same time is a charter member, so that the first to sign up can't run the program. Lots of organizations work this way with charter members deciding everything, and maybe Obama can't sell it without getting rid of this problem.
United Nations is different in that there are fifteen nations with more voting power than the other countries. TPP would have to do a lot better if the smaller and poorer countries are to be members. Just my thoughts here about why the details aren't known to everyone yet.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Until he gives me reason not to any longer. So far, he has my full faith and trust because he's never done anything that would harm us, although I'm certain some on this board vehemently disagree with me. It's all good.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)“I oppose extending or renewing the current Fast Track authority as designed, but would support a
redesigned process that provided for greater transparency, more democratic participation, and required
labor and environmental provisions in the core of agreements.”
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)"....more democratic participation...."
That was the whole point of my post.
The rest of your quote about labor I especially believe. People have to earn a living wage in EVERY country so that low low wages don't tip the wealth in one direction...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)democratic. Just the opposite. Candidate Obama said he didn't like the Fast Track process and now President Obama is strongly pushing the Fast Track process.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Obama 2008 said:
“I will replace Fast Track with a process that includes criteria determining appropriate negotiating
partners that includes an analysis of labor and environmental standards as well as the state of civil
society in those countries. Finally, I will ensure that Congress plays a strong and informed role in our
international economic policy and in any future agreements we pursue and in our efforts to amend
existing agreements.”
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Response to rhett o rick (Reply #313)
neverforget This message was self-deleted by its author.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)If Obama has expressed to conflicting and mutually exclusive aims he will believe both and whichever Obama then acts on he will then support it with equal vigor as he would if it came down the other way.
Essentially, the poster has asserted their own mind is superfluous and just as well be sawdust as brain matter in any conversation where President Obama has involvement and whatever they have to say is a waste of time/an automatic +1 to whatever Obama says.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)much easier. Many Americans are raised to totally trust authority, but what I don't understand it the pride some have with their total intellectual capitulation. "I proudly trust and will never question ________." Yet many of these people will call themselves Liberals. They don't know what liberal means. It doesn't include blind, unquestioning Faith.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)"criteria determining appropriate negotiating partners...
A lot depends on what and who determines who's appropriate.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and allow more workers to organize. That sounds like
society in those countries
to me.
international economic policy and in any future agreements we pursue
That's probably why Congress has access to the negotiating positions and drafts.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)now when he says the opposite?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The US negotiating positions are for higher wages and stronger labor protections in our trading partners.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Jobs to them. Their lower wages. Minimum wages there is thus a good thing. Amazing to see the same posters who lament loss of jobs to Asia comaining about something that might actually help resolve that
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 1, 2015, 03:14 PM - Edit history (1)
went through the Documents.
See Post #22 downthread for link to Public Citizen's Website which has great info. Bill Moyers and Democracy Now devoted several shows focused on the TPP. They were all posted here on DU for the last two years. That's why some of us are more informed than others.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Anyone who tells the truth to the American people is now a quack.
frylock
(34,825 posts)you must have Faith.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)... and it always goes wrong. They said all the same lies about NAFTA. About "free" trade with China.
People who still believe it, well, you know.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I don't think he's malignant, but I also don't think he's infallible.
Unfortunately, this is an extremely difficult issue. "Get informed" can mean one of two things:
1) Spend about 5 years studying the relevant economics full time, after which you will be able to arrive at an at least somewhat informed opinion of your own.
2) Listen to those who have done so, and see which side has the more informed opinion behind it.
Unfortunately, in this case, while uninformed opinion is clearly massively against the TPP, informed opinion appears to be roughly evenly split, so all I can say is, unless you're a highly-trained specialist, wait and see.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Besides, he can't be negative at this point while the proposed agreement is still in negotiations. And he can't tell the potential parties to any agreement, he's going to let our current Congress negotiate details. The potential parties to the agreement would tell him to stick it.
I still believe if the final form is bad, Obama won't endorse it. But that's impossible to prove at this point among folks who believed he was going to support the pipeline, gut social security, and generally sell us down the river.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people's representatives, did they lose their jobs over the course of these 'secret' negotiations with Global Corps writing the 'details' rather than Congress, Ron Wyden eg, having some input?
Personally, and I may be living in a different world, but I don't want Global Corporations determining what is good for the American people.
They are not our Representatives.
Congress represents the American people and at least the members of the Trade Committee should have been involved from the beginning in those negotiations. Instead they were out right denied any role, any participation in the process.
No matter what is in it, that is an outrage. To simply dismiss the People's Reps in favor of Global Corps, is an outrage.
But as I said, I must wakened up in some future time and missed where Congress lost its relevancy and Global Corps now represent the interests of the American people.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to Congress for approval, denial or revision.
If Congress were involved in every dang detail it would take 300 years to finalize, if then, and they'd still be arguing about whether to put a staple in the left or right corner. This is too complicated to let a bunch of politicians -- who hate Obama, or people who think the world is out to screw them -- negotiate every detail until a formal document is presented. At that point, they can negotiate details, including placement of commas, whether it is good for America and the world, etc.
You don't appear to be paying attention.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Yes or no, up or down. That is what Obama wants.
Are you paying attention to the leaks? Investors can sue countries and states and cities in a corporate court, with corporate judges, in order to either strike down laws and regulations that impact furure profits, or else have us pay whatever they say those profits were to be?
YOU are not paying attention, it seems.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Congress, you and I will see the final document before it is put up for vote. There will be plenty of opportunity for action on the final version. Plus, it ain't gonna happen for at least a year, likely longer.
Investors CAN'T sue for just any old reason under the agreement. Those times they might have an action, they won't necessarily win, and the country won't necessarily pay. Heck, they can sue now.
They can't strike down any law that impacts profits. I think what they can do is that if a country attracts significant foreign investment based upon a given set of laws and then those laws are changed dramatically, a corporation might have some basis for suing and asking for relief. But, even then, there is no guarantee they can win, or get paid. Again, I think you are taking things to the extreme.
You are not paying attention to reason, and have no faith in Obama.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)US-led trade deal is currently being negotiated that could increase the price of prescription drugs, weaken financial regulations and even allow partner countries to challenge American laws. But few know its substance.
The pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is deliberately shrouded in secrecy, a trade deal powerful people, including President Obama, don't want you to know about. Over 130 Members of Congress have asked the White House for more transparency about the negotiations and were essentially told to go fly a kite. While most of us are in the dark about the contents of the deal, which Obama aims to seal by year end, corporate lobbyists are in the know about what it contains.
And some vigilant independent watchdogs are tracking the negotiations with sources they trust, including Dean Baker and Yves Smith, who join Moyers & Company this week. Both have written extensively about the TPP and tell Bill the pact actually has very little to do with free trade.
Instead, says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, "This really is a deal that's being negotiated by corporations for corporations and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental." Yves Smith, an investment banking expert who runs the Naked Capitalism blog adds: "There would be no reason to keep it so secret if it was in the interest of the public."
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Doing nothing COULD ruin our economy for decades.
The fact is, corporations are the main ones involved in international trade. Your small mom-and-pop shop down the street, not so much.
I believe a good trade agreement will help people here and in other countries. Whatever, unless we are ready to go back to living off the land -- which would be fine with me --our economic future is pretty much tied to corporations, like it or not.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Beautifully put sabrina! I feel exactly the same way.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)TPP Explained....Interactive Links at "Public Citizen"
PUBLIC CITIZEN:
https://www.citizen.org/tpp
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Job Loss, Lower Wages and Higher Drug Prices, Unregulated Agricultural Imports
Have you heard? The TPP is a massive, controversial "free trade" agreement currently being pushed by big corporations and negotiated behind closed doors by officials from the United States and 11 other countries – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
The TPP would expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) “trade” pact model that has spurred massive U.S. trade deficits and job loss, downward pressure on wages, unprecedented levels of inequality and new floods of agricultural imports. The TPP not only replicates, but expands NAFTA’s special protections for firms that offshore U.S. jobs. And U.S. TPP negotiators literally used the 2011 Korea FTA – under which exports have fallen and trade deficits have surged – as the template for the TPP.
In one fell swoop, this secretive deal could:
offshore millions of American jobs,
roll back Wall Street reforms,
sneak in SOPA-like threats to Internet freedom,
ban Buy American policies needed to create green jobs,
jack up the cost of medicines,
expose the U.S. to unsafe food and products,
and empower corporations to attack our environmental and health safeguards.
Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.
The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations. The tribunals would be authorized to order taxpayer compensation to the foreign corporations for the "expected future profits" they surmise would be inhibited by the challenged policies.
We only know about the TPP's threats thanks to leaks – the public is not allowed to see the draft TPP text. Even members of Congress, after being denied the text for years, are now only provided limited access. Meanwhile, more than 500 official corporate "trade advisors" have special access. The TPP has been under negotiation for six years, and the Obama administration wants to sign the deal this year. Opposition to the TPP is growing at home and in many of the other countries involved.
.
AT THE LINK: https://www.citizen.org/tpp
TPP Corporate Empowerment Map: See which foreign corporations near you could use NAFTA-style investor rights to challenge laws and regulations under TPP
Factsheet Series: Learn how TPP's investment rules harm Public Access to Essential Services, Public Health and the Environment
Flyer: Get all the quick facts on TPP and then spread the word
Find out more on the blog: Read the latest on TPP on Eyes on Trade
https://www.citizen.org/tpp
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Possibly I should clarify/extend that to "opinion among people who, while they may have access to facts on the issue, do not have the skills to analyse those facts, is heavily against it".
A "fact-sheet" absolutely doesn't amount to "getting informed" on something this complicated; to work out whether the assertions on that sheet are true or false, and whether they're relevant or misleading, requires a great deal of study.
It's very obvious from the tone of this that it's faith-based, sadly. That absolutely doesn't mean that it's wrong, but it does mean that if it's right then that's a coincidence; a clock stopping at the right time.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)when it comes to the welfare of American workers.
I see no reason to believe that this one will be any better, especially since so much effort has been expended to hide it from Congress and the electorate.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sends more US jobs oversees? That doesn't appear to require any deep analytical skills to me, especially since our last Trade Agreement did just that. But hey, why let past experience influence anything
Could you help us analyze the parts about Internet Freedom, or the fact that Global Corps will have the ability to by pass our hard fought for Environmental laws?
Maybe I'm too simple minded, but what we HAVE seen so far, regarding the Environment and Internet freedom, from the leaks, are we missing something GOOD there? If millions of people HAVE analyzed what they have seen, and pretty much mostly agree, that this is going to be devastating to the American people's interests, who should we believe? Those who have a vested interest in loosening our Environmental Laws, or those who have no monetary investment?
For me that's an easy question to answer. But like I said, I am told, we the People are not that smart.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
In this democracy or on this planet, there is nobody smarter than you, sabrina 1.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) Octafish
(55,745 posts)It seems they never learned a most important lesson: Every person is unique and each carries a spark of the Divine.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)(BTW "Public Citizen" is not a Faith Based Group...as you said in your reply above. Have no idea why you thought that)
===============
Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is a Pending Disaster
by Robert Reich
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock" and “The Work of Nations." His latest, "Beyond Outrage," is now out in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Republicans who now run Congress say they want to cooperate with President Obama, and point to the administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, as the model. The only problem is the TPP would be a disaster.
If you haven’t heard much about the TPP, that’s part of the problem right there. It would be the largest trade deal in history — involving countries stretching from Chile to Japan, representing 792 million people and accounting for 40 percent of the world economy – yet it’s been devised in secret.
Lobbyists from America’s biggest corporations and Wall Street’s biggest banks have been involved but not the American public. That’s a recipe for fatter profits and bigger paychecks at the top, but not a good deal for most of us, or even for most of the rest of the world.
First some background. We used to think about trade policy as a choice between “free trade” and “protectionism.” Free trade meant opening our borders to products made elsewhere. Protectionism meant putting up tariffs and quotas to keep them out.
In the decades after World War II, America chose free trade. The idea was that each country would specialize in goods it produced best and at least cost. That way, living standards would rise here and abroad. New jobs would be created to take the place of jobs that were lost. And communism would be contained.
For three decades, free trade worked. It was a win-win-win.
But in more recent decades the choice has become far more complicated and the payoff from trade agreements more skewed to those at the top.
Tariffs are already low. Negotiations now involve such things as intellectual property, financial regulations, labor laws, and rules for health, safety, and the environment.
It’s no longer free trade versus protectionism. Big corporations and Wall Street want some of both.
They want more international protection when it comes to their intellectual property and other assets. So they’ve been seeking trade rules that secure and extend their patents, trademarks, and copyrights abroad, and protect their global franchise agreements, securities, and loans.
But they want less protection of consumers, workers, small investors, and the environment, because these interfere with their profits. So they’ve been seeking trade rules that allow them to override these protections.
Not surprisingly for a deal that’s been drafted mostly by corporate and Wall Street lobbyists, the TPP provides exactly this mix.
What’s been leaked about it so far reveals, for example, that the pharmaceutical industry gets stronger patent protections, delaying cheaper generic versions of drugs. That will be a good deal for Big Pharma but not necessarily for the inhabitants of developing nations who won’t get certain life-saving drugs at a cost they can afford.
The TPP also gives global corporations an international tribunal of private attorneys, outside any nation’s legal system, who can order compensation for any “unjust expropriation” of foreign assets.
Even better for global companies, the tribunal can order compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation’s regulations. Philip Morris is using a similar provision against Uruguay (the provision appears in a bilateral trade treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland), claiming that Uruguay’s strong anti-smoking regulations unfairly diminish the company’s profits.
Read More at......
http://robertreich.org/post/107257859130
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)He may well be right - certainly, the tribunals are a provision I've seen criticised even by the legislation's supporters - but I'm not in a position to be more definite than that.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Or do a DU Site Google Search and look at the videos posted here from Democracy Now and Bill Moyers speaking with Public Citizen Group, Robert Reich and others who have read the Wikileaks and who are informed on the subject of the TPP. Remember the threat of it has been around for years so plenty of people have been doing work to try to find as much as they can about it and they are professionals and not Fox News Hacks or the KochBrothers.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The only opinions worth listening to on this one are the latter, or people with similar specialist expertise. Many of them, like the one you linked, are against the TPP, but many others are for it.
It's easy to find a great deal of stuff that has been written about the TPP and similar pacts. If you read that, and accept the bits you like, it's easy to come to believe one understands them. It's much harder to actually do so.
Elwood P Dowd
(11,443 posts)They never saw a fake free trade deal that didn't give them multiple orgasms. They have been proven wrong time and time again. Go check their predictions for NAFTA. They projected reduced trade deficits after NAFTA, and the deficits increased dramatically. They predicted a net gain of 250,000 new jobs, and we ended up losing 700,000 jobs directly and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of spin-off and support jobs that are not even tracked or counted.
I no longer listen to these bought and paid for corporate whores.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and that only your opinions are informed ones.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The whole point of this sequence of posts has been that on this issue my opinion *isn't* informed.
The only difference I claiming between me and some of the people I've been talking too is that I'm aware of this.
And I certainly haven't been asserting that anyone is a knave. At worst, a fool.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)the information that has been leaked.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)"Having concerns" is entirely reasonable. But that's absolutely not an accurate characterisation of most of the attitudes I have seen.
"I am worried this will be a bad thing, but not confident that it will be" is an entirely sensible response from a lay-person, but one I have rarely seen.
"I know that this will be a bad thing" is not, but is common.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)don't go well.
I don't trust the motivations, intentions, or actions of the heavily involved non - government players and that "heavily involved" is substantially understated
That I have little confidence of any serious intent to regulate multinationals from the American government actors and that our own bullshit labor and environmental regulations are being set as the unobtainable Gold standard the other participants will be edged to while further hampering our internal ability to improve upon these standards legally, politically, and economically. Giving room for nefarious parties to continue to reduce ours while continuing to bleed our workers and consumers out.
That I have heard the same arguments in favor every time a deal has gone through regardless of party and so the little boy who cried wolf factor has the meter pegged.
That I believe the entire method of passing these things to be a scam because agreements of this much impact with international bodies should go through the formal treaty process.
Just the chosen way to do business in this area shows disdain and willful intent of proponents to end around the constitution from both parties including the full leadership chain.
That the majority of "experts" have been consistently WRONG and not just on trade but broadly about economics and are always wrong in favor of capital at the expense of workers to I think one would not be unreasonable to wonder at, notice, and respond to a sticky pattern of outcomes.
AL the "mistakes" go ONE way. That is what the real world calls an agenda.
All of which means that no way this discussion starts out with me being neutral and sure as hell won't be granting such agreements a privileged position of assumed to be good until proven otherwise because from my perspective to do so is insane"?
The Joe Cool thing is a sales strategy.
The appearance of being above the fray is cultivated, passive language employed but the reality is the person making such a case is deftly arguing in favor via framing.
The house wins all ties, all you have to do is talk people into "wait and see" and the ball is advanced and there is a more than fair chance by employing this framing tactic, the agreement will actually be the "default" and the burden of proof moves to the opposition because again tie goes to the house, might as well ride that out rather than get into the weeds.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)I can't get over the orchestrated efforts of the plutocracy's sock-puppets to ram this through. Whether they do so out of malice for the 99 percent, ignorance, or being team players, it doesn't really matter.
All that matters is the results of the agenda you speak of have all gone the same way; To the solidifying of the plutocracy's gains, and the bane of the US working class.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)but somehow every miscalculation benefits capital so over enough time if one is remotely being honest the pattern will dictate that this is just the plan. A feature to the people profiting not some random bug that pops up.by surprise.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That analysis is sufficient to conclude that the TPP is going to be bad.
I have no need to listen to cheerleading for corporate-friendly trade agreements.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)of ideological zealots that have had the same opinions regardless of time and situation and have given dubious prognostications time after time.
At what point does always being wrong move one from "expert" status?
I think you have constructed a high minded rationalization here.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Public Citizen's pro-regulatory stance has been criticized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Citizen
Lori Wallach is the Director and Founder of Global Trade Watch, a division of Public Citizen.[1] She is an expert and activist in global trade issues. Wallach has testified before Congress about the effect NAFTA, WTO, and other free trade agreements have on global citizens. She has played a significant role in the negotiations of many free trade agreements by acting as a consumer watch dog.
Wallach has appeared on MSNBC, CNN, NPR, ABC, CNBC, Fox News, PBS, Bloomberg TV, BBC and C-SPAN. In addition, she has been quoted extensively in publications such as The New York Times, The Economist, Forbes, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, USA Today, Bloomberg, and The National Journal. She has been described by the Wall Street Journal as, "Ralph Nader with a sense of humor" and was dubbed "the Trade Debate's Guerrilla Warrior" in a National Journal profile.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Wallach
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...but a majority of what's been revealed in the summary has to do with ancillary measures and concerns; like SOPA; environmental concerns like fracking; health regs regarding tobacco which don't comport to our own nation's restrictions; and other regulations which would be expected to be enforced by foreign corporations without much accountability or expectations of clear enforcement over those.
What we've seen in other trade agreements is that the corporate flow of dollars is ensured, but the provisions relating to the environment, safety, health, or even protection of American jobs are subject to spotty enforcement, if any, like we saw with the Bush administration after the enactment of the Clinton-era trade pacts.
Lots here to be wary of...
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Who says those of the opinion massively against the TPP are uninformed?
Who says?
The authors of the TPP? Those that passionately defend it? This huge influx of posters that we don't commonly see so excited about an issue?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)uninformed opinion is against tpp; informed opinion is split, so we should 'wait and see'?
that's ridiculous when it seems a majority of the population is against it (the uninformed and half the informed).
on point
(2,506 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)If it was something good for us, they would not want it.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Huffington Post Mr Prez? Please they are against it and they suck
just tell us who we can trust? Secrecey or your word on fast track from 2008
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then publish the details of the agreement and stop chiding us into approving something we can't see.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Iggo
(47,534 posts) 
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,909 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)(thanks Wikileaks, AGAIN) to try to ascertain what Global Corporations have in mind for the American people. And from those leaks, it isn't good at all.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Because "I say so" is a no sale.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)drafts. The consternations seem to be over the security levels they must abide by.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)
progressoid
(49,945 posts)Oh, wait. He didn't mean us little Democrats out in the real world. Only a select few get to know the details.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Every single member of Congress has access to the drafts, and we'll see it when the drafting is done?
Just want to make sure I'm understanding this clearly. 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)because he's not on the committee responsible for it.
When it's finally negotiated (which may take another 4 years, remember) and if Obama signs it, we can read it. If fast track has been authorized, the Senate will then have 90 days to give it an up or down vote as negotiated. If fast track hasn't been granted, then Ted Cruz can add an amendment, at which point all the countries have to start negotiating again.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)If it's fast tracked, will some Senators concerns, i.e. Gillibrand/dairy farmers, still be addressed? Or will it be a done deal?
I believe what you are saying is that there will still be room for some negotiations after it's fast tracked, but fast tracking will eliminate derailing the whole plan?
Am I understanding this right?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It means they have to vote yes or no on the language the US and other countries negotiated within 90 days. (In some ways Fast Track makes it easier to kill the TPP, since it dies if it doesn't get out of committee in the first 60 days.)
I believe what you are saying is that there will still be room for some negotiations after it's fast tracked, but fast tracking will eliminate derailing the whole plan?
Sorry if I expressed it that way. If TPA ("fast track"
is granted (like it was to every President since FDR except -- totally coincidentally -- the black guy) then the language as negotiated is what Congress has to vote on.
If TPA is not granted, then the Senate can add new language to it. But that won't be language that the other countries have agreed to, so they'll be ratifying a treaty that no other country has signed, so the negotiations have to start up again to get a version all the countries can agree to.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Thank you so very much for putting it into layman's terms for me.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'll see if I can look that up.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)If you want us to get behind it, then explain why we should be for it.
It's a complicated issue that you can't expect the ordinary American to understand, so please do it for us.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)It's true!
I read it on DU!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923
I think that's what Obama is trying to say.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)“ I will replace Fast Track with a process that includes criteria determining appropriate negotiating
partners that includes an analysis of labor and environmental standards as well as the state of civil
society in those countries. Finally, I will ensure that Congress plays a strong and informed role in our
international economic policy and in any future agreements we pursue and in our efforts to amend
existing agreements.”
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Is great phrase. Geithner sacrificed homeowners to “foam the runway” for the banks:
Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has published a new book, “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.” It presents a damning indictment of the Obama administration’s execution of the TARP program generally, and of HAMP in particular.
…
By delaying millions of foreclosures, HAMP gave bailed-out banks more time to absorb housing-related losses while other parts of Obama’s bailout plan repaired holes in the banks’ balance sheets. According to Barofsky, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner even had a term for it. HAMP borrowers would “foam the runway” for the distressed banks looking for a safe landing. It is nice to know what Geithner really thinks of those Americans who were busy losing their homes in hard times.
CONTINUED w VIDEO and links and more letters...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/video-geithner-sacrificed-homeowners-to-foam-the-runway-for-the-banks/article/2502982
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
SamKnause
(13,088 posts)turned out to be.
What happen to transparency ???
You have worked hard to earn my distrust. ( Your disgusting appointments and nominations, your refusal to prosecute war criminals, your protection for the thieves on Wall Street, you illegal drone killings, your passing of the Cromnibus bill with your BFF Jamie Dimon, signing 3 new Free Trade agreements (we have lost 60,000 jobs since you signed the trade agreement with South Korea, your bipartisanship with insane people, and the list goes on and on.)
You have done everything you can to minimize Liberals and Progressives.
The Republicans love the TPP.
That should send a shiver down your spine.
P.S. I didn't read anything about the TPP on Huffington Post. HP or the mainstream media are not my news sources. I no longer believe a word you say. It will be very hard to repair the damage you have caused to the Liberals and Progressives.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Over and over he has said one thing and done another. We have allowed him for to long to get away with double talk and broken promises.
How many times has Obama promised to go after companies taking jobs overseas? To cut loopholes and bad trade deals? Yet here he is supporting free trade to make it even easier to off shore jobs and profits. Obama is a Benedict.
SamKnause
(13,088 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Tell us stuff about it, share the good and bad parts.
He sounds very determined on this, and with a GOP House and Senate...guess who wins?
The corporations.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I don't see anyone talking about what happens if we tell the other potential partners that we are not interested in a long-term trade agreement that could be to our, and the world's, benefit.
Sometimes, sitting on your rear ain't the right approach either.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Seeing how well NAFTA turned out, count me a critic.
Obama Blasted for Lumping Critics of Trade Deal Secrecy with 'Conspiracy Theorists'
'If the president is concerned that people don't know what's going on in the negotiations then the president should release the text and remove it from being a state secret.'
- Sarah Lazare, staff writer
Published on Friday, May 2, 2014 by Common Dreams
Critics of the highly-secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations responded with outrage after U.S. President Barack Obama charged they have a "lack of knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations" and dismissed their concerns as "conspiracy theories."
The president made the comments this week during a press conference in Malaysia—one of the stops on his Asia-Pacific tour, aimed at advancing the TPP and the U.S. military "pivot" to the region. His tour has been met with region-wide protests against the economic and military agenda of the U.S.
SNIP...
Bernadette Ellorin, Chairperson of BAYAN-USA—an alliance of Filipino organizations in the U.S., told Common Dreams, "President Obama lacks knowledge of how so-called 'free trade agreements' impact people on the ground. The push-back he has gotten over the TPP comes from people who have long-suffered from these impacts."
"He should go back and talk with the parent-less children in the region, whose parents had no choice but to look for work overseas because they couldn't find work in their own country due to these so-called 'free trade' agreements," she added. "He should go back and talk to the indigenous children whose parents were killed by paramilitary groups because greater foreign investment stipulations in these agreements have led to forced evacuations and militarization of their land for the purpose of large scale foreign mining."
CONTINUED...
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/02-5
Cass Sunstein must be right: The United States government is incapable of lying or doing anything criminal. I guess that means "By Definition."
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)those photos should be all over the net more than they are.
this is the trade they do
KoKo
(84,711 posts)seems to be using Rahm Emmanuel's Talking Points. Critics are "Conspiracy Theorists" in his Asian speech and now "Huffington Post," is currently under fire. He doesn't mention the Citizens Groups and Labor who have been all over the TPP with research using qualified people. But, Robert Reich posts at Huffington Post ....so maybe that was his way of attacking Reich because he has come out against TPP. And, maybe Paul Krugman, too. I think he just came out against TPP and he has often posted at Huff Post.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)There are no remaining fully reliable sources of information.
TimeToEvolve
(303 posts)he is basically Amerikka's Joseph Goebbels
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)just scrape the iceberg on what a devious and horrid person he is.
If you looked up ugly politics in the dictionary, he and his wife would be smiling for the camera in the picture.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Time has proven the many great DUers from that thread correct.
Seven years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)transparency. They want to shut down debate. It's like calling someone a witch and organizing a posse.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)"It's a conspiracy theory!" ... so stop asking questions or you will be fitted with a tin foil hat!
The important part is "shut up and stop asking if you know what's good for you."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)drafts.
You don't get to see the negotiations with Iran before they are done, either.....
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts) msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)... we are don't you think?!?!
I mean, if Senator McConnell (and many other lovely Republicans) is for it I can rest easy knowing that it will benefit average Americans. Surely!
I don't need to be informed about what's in this massive Agreement before it passes and gets implemented.
The Republicans are for it!! We can rest easy.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,046 posts)They need to consult experts who also have access and do not have a financial interest in the outcome.
It's not like we haven't been screwed before.
pa28
(6,145 posts)I'll take their word over his any day of the week.
We're still waiting for Obama to fulfill his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA.. That other trade deal that was supposed to help the middle class by creating all of these new jobs.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)"It'll help the job creators to create jobs!" Do your research Dems how many US jobs did the job creators create after they passed NAFTA? And didn't Obama campaign on renegotiating NAFTA? What happened to that promise? Get informed Dems!
merrily
(45,251 posts)bus, too.
How gigundous is that bus anyway?
Enrique
(27,461 posts)
Skittles
(153,113 posts)TRUST ME! IT WILL BE GREAT!
KG
(28,751 posts)
Omaha Steve
(99,494 posts)K&R!
KMOD
(7,906 posts)I know the Sen. Gillbrand has some concerns about it hurting NY dairy farmers. And Shumer has concerns about it not helping the middle class.
I will however take the President's advice and not read about it in the Huffington Post.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I tend to think of our furniture industry, clothing industry, manufacturing in general, even the aircraft maintainence industry (your airline aircraft now are taken all over the world for heavy maintainence)...
I can't believe that the argument here is about Huff Post...fuck that. It's about the TTP and how it will screw over more of the 99%.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
And what's more, she stiffed her contributors when she sold out the HP.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)
Barack Obama
44th President of the United States
A Blueprint for Middle-Class Economics
Posted: 01/29/2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/obama-budget-middle-class-economics_b_6570948.html?1422544154
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I laughed out loud with that one.
The CCC
(463 posts)I don't read the Huffington Post. But there is nothing wrong with it either as a news source.
Our country's sovereignty and citizens pocketbooks are on the line. We'll be competing for $0.50 per hour Vietnam wage levels.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)"sit down and shut up"? are they really so desperate that they're unboxing the clattering skeletons of decade-old talking points, like "Ralph Nader caused Iraq" or "just vote in the primaries" or "circular-firing-squad purity purge"--and that's after they praise GOP policies, funded the war, surged the other war, and torpedoed a dozen primaries, no less! maybe they'll start slamming dissidents as Hanoi's useful idiots
it's the same reeking desperation you see with trickle-down spokesmen as the fear-sweat drips down their moustaches of doubt and stanks through their polyester outfits as they explain that austerity's 40th year of failure was simply because nobody tried it HARD enough, you see, and they explain that Pinochet and Martinez de Hoz and Carlos Andres Perez had compromised too much with "statist structurality" and that they just hadn't let the reforms run long enough--that they pulled back because they had disastrous results, and after all just because an economic theory has had a proven track record of open failure doesn't mean it's a bad one
merrily
(45,251 posts)"are they really so desperate that they're unboxing the clattering skeletons of decade-old talking points"
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Keep your powder dry"..
Think about that for 7 years
MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's always been to delay reaction: cries that "TRUE liberals support the President," "the President doesn't have a magic wand," "the President is really liberal, here's the links" are blatantly false in the face of surges, secret wars in several countries, and Obama whipping Congress to pass bank bailouts; "wait to see what's in the bill" will mean that nobody should call or write Washington to complain in defense of Social Security, public option, etc.
the political system matches the economic system it proposes, and so they start acting the same way--the party's now run like a factory farm or a charter school
but what's most disturbing is the emptying-out of politics: Central American Liberal and Conservative parties were characterized by representing two slightly different owner classes, promises without programs, conservative and RW policy, running mostly on 50- or 80-year-old accomplishments or as the "party of (some guy killed 150 years before)"; if you ask voters why, they'll say because their whole family has always done so, or that they're just not the other party
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)over the many years since Bush on what is what..... but that's more than 10 years for me and you and others............and then some don't change ......I wonder why they continue their defense of the status quo but do argue for little things of progress to keep their status in tac.and don't see the big picure or connect the dots .......nevermind.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)to keep the people passive through the next skinning.
We are observing CORRUPTION,
from the incessant lies of our politicians to the relentless, insulting spew of the propaganda machine infesting discussion boards on the internet.
What a moral sewer the government of this nation has become.
.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Concise, humorous too. Quotable.
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
http://www.poemdujour.com/Sept1.1939.html
KG
(28,751 posts)and the rest of us can see it when our betters let us. it's all about soybeans anyway...so stop bashing the prez.
so, everything is hunky dory....
merrily
(45,251 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)If I know my buddy, KB.
merrily
(45,251 posts)really like to know.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Based on past experience with trade deals and the fact that details of this one are still.secret -- always a big red flag -- I'm still skeptical. VERY skeptical.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)Obama promised to be tough on companies that take their jobs overseas. Yet we have another free trade deal making it easier for them. Free trade deals destroy the middle class. End free trade! Protect the American worker!
KoKo
(84,711 posts)US-led trade deal is currently being negotiated that could increase the price of prescription drugs, weaken financial regulations and even allow partner countries to challenge American laws. But few know its substance.
The pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is deliberately shrouded in secrecy, a trade deal powerful people, including President Obama, don't want you to know about. Over 130 Members of Congress have asked the White House for more transparency about the negotiations and were essentially told to go fly a kite. While most of us are in the dark about the contents of the deal, which Obama aims to seal by year end, corporate lobbyists are in the know about what it contains.
And some vigilant independent watchdogs are tracking the negotiations with sources they trust, including Dean Baker and Yves Smith, who join Moyers & Company this week. Both have written extensively about the TPP and tell Bill the pact actually has very little to do with free trade.
Instead, says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, "This really is a deal that's being negotiated by corporations for corporations and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental." Yves Smith, an investment banking expert who runs the Naked Capitalism blog adds: "There would be no reason to keep it so secret if it was in the interest of the public."
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'll post them after she gets back to me.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Yes, Elizabeth Warren has seen the TPP legislation.
She has also condemned it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-other-democrats-raise-concerns-about-free-trade-pact-with-asia/2014/12/17/19de1c48-8632-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html
merrily
(45,251 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)for some reason.
Nah, I don't think so.
merrily
(45,251 posts) StopTheTPP
(64 posts)That's why we have to call and say NO to fast track
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...fast track is the ploy to remove these treaties from the democratic process and make them an autocratic instrument of the unitary executive to pack them with changes to our law which go well beyond 'trade' (as if that wasn't enough) that wouldn't survive the normal legislative gauntlet.
Our representatives need to know that we expect them to have a clear voice in crafting these treaties, and that it's unacceptable that corporations are allowed to design them while they're kept at bay. Fast track is a betrayal of democracy. Let's get that message to our Senators and representatives in Congress.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)Our representatives need to know that we expect them to have a clear voice in crafting these treaties, and that it's unacceptable that corporations are allowed to design them while they're kept at bay. Fast track is a betrayal of democracy. Let's get that message to our Senators and representatives in Congress.
Most Excellent. You manage to say in 2 short paragraphs what takes others pages.
Lots of people died for the Constitution and what it represents. The other side better remember that while they plot in secret and twist and distort reality.
JEB
(4,748 posts)that is the truth in a nutshell.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It doesn't take a lot of reading to figure out what the Obama administration is trying to do with this deal and it ain't what the demagoguers claim it is. So if I may say it politely, to heck with HuffPo, Democracy Now and the rest of the disinfoteers.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that Senator Sanders and all the rest are lying about it?
Are the 805 docs the complete agreement? Or is that 805 out of 2,000 documents? Maybe the State Dept only released those docs that don't look so badly for the 99%.
I don't blindly trust Democracy Now or Sen Sanders or the President. That's why I think it's very important to get this in the open for debate. Why do some Democrats now believe in government secrecy and lack of transparency?
Even with your 805 docs available, I still don't see anyone arguing against the concerns of Sen Sanders and the Left. Why aren't those Democrats that favor the TPP explaining how specifically the concerns are false?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Loud declarations of not wanting to be any further informed And the lack of demand of their congressmen to get more informed before deciding.
These people want to be right. They do not care at all about us and our economy. ODS is the only consideration.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)All the secrecy makes me think the whole thing stinks.
If it's so great, then fucking tell us what's in it.
Of course you can't do that, because you are basically selling out to corporations.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)tonight's assignment: get informed.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Worth the read but not a trustworthy analysis.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Never thought I'd see that day dawn but I 'm glad it did. Dunno if they're on the take or old and dumb or just fruckin' racists but the disinfo comes from all quarters, not just CNN and FOX.
JEB
(4,748 posts)especially those doing the negotiations. Logic demands that these trade agreements be met with much skepticism as they have proven to be disastrous in the past.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)NAFTA we were told by Ross Porot of all people would produce a giant sucking sound, and maybe it did, but that was going on long before NAFTA and would have continued without it. Ditto TPP. It can't unscramble the egg but that doesn't mean it's a turkey. And if US exports go up, which is what Obama is trying to accomplish with it, it's hard to argue that that hurts US workers.
JEB
(4,748 posts)to give one whit about the lives of American workers, not one whit about environmental regulation. That bridge is burned as far as I am concerned. They will have find another way to line their pockets.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)"NAFTA we were told by Ross Porot of all people would produce a giant sucking sound, and maybe it did". Weasel words. "Maybe it did" my ass. It did.
"but that was going on long before NAFTA and would have continued without it"
It was going on before and accelerated exponentially after the passage; the flood gates being open and the conditions far more ripe for wholesale labor arbitrage south of the border. The trade surplus ( albeit a small one ) grew into an ever burgeoning trade deficit. Those are FACTS...aint no "maybe" there.
"Ditto TPP" You mean the giant sucking sound?
"It can't unscramble the egg but that doesn't mean it's a turkey"
Ah, I see. It's at this point you transition from "it's not true, it's not true!" to "too bad, that's the way it is, nothing can be done about it". What side do you weigh in on?
" And if US exports go up". "If". Are you really going to gamble with the working class' livelyhoods due to an "if" in the name of some visceral loyalty to a president or a party? Anyway, I digress, as that was a minor point. All these trade agreements did nothing more than widening existing US trade deficits. You know why? Because while all the chirpy cheerers for free trade were trying to distract us from the debit side of the balance sheet by spouting "exports! exports! exports!" it was the IMPORTS that skyrocketed. The balance being so lopsided that they outstripped whatever growith of exports. That means, every deal you make will put you deeper in the hole. If you're losing money on every deal, you're not going to make up for it in volume; aint gonna' work.
"it's hard to argue that that hurts US workers". Glib. baseless.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)actually says, not some rhetoric. "We strive" for goodness and wonderfulness. We strive to help all people. We strive for world peace and a chicken in every pot.
That's empty rhetoric.
JEB
(4,748 posts)of American Working Class people. Every single one of these "trade" agreements has been huge "fuck you" to workers and a boon to corporate elites. Secretly negotiated and written in convoluted language sure to give corporations backdoors to enrich themselves at a cost that we will only find about when it is too late to stop. This is what these things are.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Autumn
(44,980 posts)from the most transparent administration. One thing really bothers me, who is the "we" in this "We share same values and are looking out for the same people,"?
classykaren
(769 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)On one hand you have the Left with testimony from many that claim the TPP will cause harm to the lower classes. Pointing out the damage done the last number of times this has been done. You have people pointing out that this is not a mere Trade Agreement" but a Trojan Horse with lots of very damaging add-ons that give the major corporation incredible powers over governments.
And on the Conservative Wing of the Party, regarding the TPP you get nothing but "Have Faith". No facts, no arguments, just "Have Faith".
Sorry, I would love to believe the President is looking out for the 99%, but I know the big corporations he has been working with not only don't care about us, but they seek to steal our wealth any way they can.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)I'm so disappointed, but on the other hand I'm glad this is the wedge issue for the direction of the democratic party going forward because it's so clear: The 99 percent vs the 1 percent.
Which side are they on?
Of course pols/pundits will try to spin it ( as they always have ) by glibly claiming the effects will be the exact opposite ( it'll create jobs!!!!..........etc ) of what it will bring, as they all have. We can expect that now, and everyone other than the inveterate troglodytes know the deal on FTAs. Hence the angry push-back from non-populist wing of the democratic party.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)First, the "split" you're so desperate to believe exists "in the Democratic Party" is a localized phenomenon stemming from the junior high cliquishness you, among others, have tried to impose right here on this website, and has nothing to do with the party. It's of a piece with your standard boilerplate about an "Elizabeth Warren Wing" or a "Conservative Wing" of the party, or your mournful musings about "Oligarch Rulers" and whatnot. It's not analysis; it's a cartoon, a stick drawing.
Are some Democrats farther left than others? Sure. But you look at a spectrum of opinions and attitudes (on trade and other issues) and seem compelled to divide it into "either/or" or "myself/other," apparently motivated by nothing more than a need to identify yourself with some self-selected group of brave Resistance fighters. In the real world, survey after survey has shown that more Democrats are inclined to support the TPP than Republicans. Are those Democrats all misinformed? Maybe, but you never even address the point, despite your penchant for believing yourself an expert on the issue; you simply pivot to talking about a "split" or about those who lack your acumen and insight simply acting on "faith."
And speaking of faith, you seem oblivious to your own susceptibility to it. You take it on faith that this trade deal is simply a monstrous calamity, you take it on faith that the President's intention is to put the nail in the coffin of the American worker, you take it on faith that this is something he advocates because he's simply a servant of the One Percent or whatever your preferred term is this week. Your faith and your confirmation bias allow for not even the smallest possibility that, just maybe, he believes this is a good thing for the economy, for the country, for American workers. He could be very much mistaken, of course, if he thinks that, but maybe he's sincere in that belief. Yet your faith precludes you from even considering the idea.
Is this trade deal a bad thing? Yes, I think it probably is, though unlike you I don't pretend to any deep knowledge of it, since my opinion - just like yours - is based on leaked drafts and a skepticism born of widely noted, sometimes fatal flaws in the prior trade pacts routinely and mostly dishonestly oversold to the public by both Democratic and Republican Presidents over the years. But it's a hell of a leap to start talking about this or any other multilateral trade deal as the "destruction of the middle class" or the "death of democracy" or similar apocalyptic hyperbole.
And when those who subscribe to such dire views, like you do, are asked why Barack Obama would push such a thing, the answers offered never make sense. To take just one example: he's doing this to ensure his financial security when he leaves office, it's been suggested here. I mean, really? The advance on his memoirs alone will probably be sufficient to keep any eventual grandchildren wealthy into their own retirement years. Hell, he could write a volume of haiku on the topic of his dog Bo and he'd make a small fortune from it. He'll be offered fat fees by everyone from environmental coalitions to the US CoC to international humanitarian groups to give 20-minute speeches at their conclaves. He could take a nominal partnership with a firm like Boies Schiller which would pay him six figures a year just for the privilege of having his name on their roster, doing little more than picking up the phone a couple of times a year to give a partner advice and amusing himself writing op-eds for the New York Times.
I'm inclined to agree with you about Trojan Horses, and I definitely concur that big corporations will "steal our wealth" any way they can (something I can attest to from personal experience). And I'm prepared to come down squarely against this trade deal once we find out more about it, although perhaps I won't. But beyond all that, this Great Divide that you posit, and your shallow characterization of those you're determined to consider your enemies, are constructs made from equal parts hot air, wishful thinking, and a conventional "wisdom" derived wholly from the echo chamber you want this site to be.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is we aren't. In 2008 it was obvious that there were two very distinctive wings of the party. And some even claim that there were two distinctive wings in 2000. But let's talk about today. The divide is very clear. The Left wants progressive legislation in the areas of economy while the conservative (Clinton) Wing want a strong Wall Street. The Left wants controls on the NSA/CIA Deep State to preserve our liberties while the Conservative Wing likes the strong authoritarian Gen Clapper taking care of us. The Left supported OWS while the Conservatives supported the police. I could go on.
Some misunderstand when the Left votes for Conservative Demo candidates as showing a unity while in fact the are only supporting the lesser of evils. The big money supports the Conservative candidates.
I don't claim to know anything personally about the TPP. I believe that Sen Sanders has shown there is enough doubt about it that we need to take a look at it. We need an open debate. Seems the Left wants openness and the Conservatives want blind acceptance. So far I have not seen anyone that supports the TPP provide one single reason other than blindly trust the President. Of course one wing of the Party does blindly trust the President, guess which one.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)Nowhere did I imply that the Democratic Party is "united and Progressive." But neither is it your Boschian nightmare vision of a death match between "Conservatives" and "the Left." Not by a long shot. The fault lines in the party today are little different than they were during the Kennedy years, or the Carter years, or the Clinton years. Big tents are big, and they come with challenges and disagreements. Stop the presses.
And yeah, you could indeed go on, but please don't on my account. Essentially all you're doing is proving the point I was trying to make about your two-dimensionalizing. "Conservatives wants blind acceptance"? Who? What "Conservatives"? Can you name them? Who here, with maybe a few exceptions (trolls and/or people so self-evidently silly that nobody should take them seriously, let alone imagine that they constitute a "wing" of the party) "blindly trusts" the President? For that matter, how many people here "support the TPP"? One? Three? Six? Where are these barbarian hordes you're manning the barricades against?
I expect most people here are quite prepared to stand in opposition to this thing when they feel they have sufficient information on which to make an informed judgment. Senator Sanders is right, as usual; there's plenty of room for doubt, but until a finalized agreement exists, if indeed it ever does, we don't even know exactly what it is we're doubting. And I don't buy for a second the notion that "by the time we find out, it will be too late." Even with fast-track authority (and do you really believe this Congress is going to grant that to this President?) there would be three months to mobilize, demonstrate, lobby, protest and raise hell about it, and make it clear to elected Democrats that they'll lose our support if they give this thing their support.
Of course all this assumes that your worst-case scenario even turns out to be correct. You haven't yet made that case, for me at least.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)"The Left wants controls on the NSA/CIA Deep State to preserve our liberties while the Conservative Wing likes the strong authoritarian Gen Clapper taking care of us." Bullshit.
"The Left supported OWS while the Conservatives supported the police." Bullshit.
"I could go on." I'm sure you could - and invariably do.
The Democratic Party is the Big Tent - always has been, always will be. The only "division" here is people like yourself, who keep insisting that the entire Party should defer to your judgment in all matters - and those who express their own opinions on the issues, rather than marching in lockstep behind you, are labelled as Third Wayers, authoritarians, DINOs, etc.
The thing that is most obvious is that you WANT that division, you WANT to portray the Party as being too diverse for your tastes. You WANT to pretend that only a select few are "pure" enough to determine how the Party operates, and dictate who's opinion is worthy of being heard.
What I don't understand is why you (and your cohorts) don't start your own party. You keep trying to convince everyone that the group of you know how to get "true progressives (TM)" elected, and that the majority of current Dems see things your way. So why don't you do just that? You have the entire internet and social media at your disposal. Why not use the tools at hand to spread the word about your great new party that is guaranteed to move the country towards progressive ideals, instead of whining incessantly on a Democratic message board about how bad the Democrats are?
The truth is there is already a party that only allows a "certain type of member", whose opinions must be in sync with their leadership. It's called the Republican Party. I'm sure you're familiar with them, given that their talking-points are trotted out on a daily basis right here on DU. That's the party of black-and-white, narrow-minded views that appeal to the "authoritarians"; it is the diversity of opinion within the Democratic Party that keeps it alive and thriving.
The constant drum-beat of "we're divided - the Warren wing, the Sanders wing, the conservative wing, the Third Way wing" - blah, blah, blah - is nothing more than a strawman constructed of bullshit. YOU and your ilk spend half your time on this site attempting to divide the Party, and then spend the other half bitching about the very divisions you yourselves are hoping to cause.
Your pathetically naive insistence that support of the Democratic president or the Party as a whole is a matter of "blind faith" and/or "blind trust" is, as I've said before, too ridiculous a notion to take seriously. But you should know - your "blind faith" in every single word uttered by your Obama-bashing buddies is more than obvious. You jump on-board with everything they say - despite admitting, when asked for details, that you "don't know anything" about what it is they're harping about.
"Blind faith" indeed.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You call me "pathetically naive", when I claim there are two distinct wings of the Party. If you don't see that Sen Warren supports the 99% and H. Clinton supports the 1%, then I am not the one that is naive. The Conservative wing that supports the NSA/CIA domestic spying, Wall Street, and drone killing is no where near on the same page as those that want to have Constitutional controls on the NSA/CIA, Wall Street and to stop the endless wars.
One wing of the Party wants transparency and wants questions answered about how the TPP will affect the 99%. The other wing, never offers any kind of factual support for the President's TPP. And when asked they continually say, "I support Obama", or "I trust Obama". Now explain to me how that isn't "blind loyalty". No one has given one single argument in favor of the TPP.
You write long messages but seem rarely to address actual issues like the TPP. By the way, are you happy with the NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc.? They haven't done much to help the 99%. Do you even support the 99%???
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... nor do they dissuade you from rambling on about things that you, by your own admission, know nothing about.
And speaking of addressing actual issues, you recently stated that the Oligarch Rulers "allowed" McCain and Palin to run as the GOP candidates in 2008. Have you come up with a response yet that explains how this was done, and why?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)facts.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)The FACT is that you recently stated that the Oligarchy Rulers "allowed" McCain/Palin to run as the GOP ticket in 2008.
I would like to discuss that FACT - or at least what you have stated as a FACT.
I would like to know what FACTS you are aware of in this regard. I would like to discuss the FACTS about how the Oligarchy Rulers (I'm assuming that's a 'patent pending' phrase now) choose the GOP nominees, and the FACTS as to why they chose McCain/Palin.
Let me know when you wish to discuss the FACTS that you keep posting about, but have never explained.
I would imagine that if you were actually in possession of such FACTS, you would be more than anxious to share them with everyone.
So why don't you?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)doesn't know what he is talking about? Your battle to support the TPP isn't with me, it's with others like Sen Sanders that claim:
1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.
8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.
10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.
I will be glad to discuss any one of these issues, but I am guessing you will fall back on disparaging me in lieu of actually having an intellectual discussion.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... without knowing yourself (as you have admitted) anything about the TPP.
That sounds an awful lot like "blind faith" to me. But in your world, "blind faith" isn't a matter of trusting Sanders' judgment or opinion - it's only "blind faith" if one trusts Obama's opinion.
You're not an opponent of "blind faith" - you just have a problem with anyone putting their trust and faith in Obama, as opposed to putting their "blind faith" in someone you approve of - or have been told to approve of.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You absolutely nailed it. 
Aerows
(39,961 posts)with the "wait and see" mentality on this particular issue, because by the time we "see" it's going to be too damn late to stop it.
So feel free to lob childish insults at people that have made very good points about this (while saying there is no divide...irony) and ridicule those that are quite familiar with the "You can always see it coming, but you can never stop it" school of "waiting and seeing".
I was born at night, but not last night.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)I don't buy the "it will be too late" canard.
I'm also not especially interested in your huge problems, but thanks for your reply.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'll just put you on ignore then since it is clear that you aren't interested in the exchange of ideas, only firing off insults.
I have plenty of huge problems, but you aren't one of them.
Jeff Rosenzweig
(121 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)Basketball.
They are efforts to run out the clock before the outcome of the game can be changed and I am having trouble of thinking of examples of when this has not turned out to be the effective situation on the ground in recent times.
No, three months isn't sufficient time to read, analyze, and effectively push back particularly when there is a corporate media that eats up these "agreements", a calcified beltway preference for voodoo economics, significant Republican support and the most likely to support Democrats love to thumb their noses at liberals and like to pal around with regressives. Plus, we have become a very risk adverse party, nothing is shouted down with a big fat thumb on the scales like a primary threat. The single issue boo birds will fly and the wagons will circle.
I think you are wrong, I don't think you are wrong with malicious intent but still dangerously wrong just as is the President.
Sorry based on the history of such efforts, it is on the proponents to present a compelling case that it is beneficial to America and her workers. History does not support a privileged default position or even one of even cautious neutrality but rather assumed toxic until proven otherwise because that is the lesson experience should have impressed way before now.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...we'll just 'renegotiate it' later.'
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)Why did Bill Clinton push NAFTA?
Why do I have to give a damn what motivations are in people's hearts?
What is wrong with believing that some folks in my very broad party believe things ideologically that I find harmful and disagreeable?
I don't believe anything "fancy". I believe Obama and others push terrible policy because it is what they believe in. He hires guys like Geithner, Lew, Emmanuel, Daley, and Summers because they are sort he believes in.
It's not even a little bit crazy, I argue it is easily the most likely answer. Stop acting like it is some amazing possibility that Obama might be a corporate friendly, capital protecting globalist when his top advisors, access pointmen, and economic people are exactly such?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)So precisely what "facts" are you basing your arguments on, other than own your blind faith in the notion that if Obama is for it, it must be something terrible - which seems to be your fact-free argument for everything?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)That shouldn't be too much to ask. There have been a lot of leaks and some people have seen parts. Sen Sanders for example, has serious reservations. No one has argued against any of the reservations or allegations. Pres Obama says "get smart" about the agreement, but he didn't explain how we get smart about a secret agreement.
Why do you think this agreement should be rammed thru w/o debate? If we can learn from history, these secret agreements are harmful to the 99%. Do you think that if it's good for the 1% then it's good for us?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)If you had bothered to read the OP, you would have noticed the line: "President Obama on Thursday asked wary House Democrats to hold their fire, while the administration negotiates several trade deals ..."[/o]
So unless you are a House Dem, your use of the word "we" doesn't apply.
And again your black-and-white thinking (or blatant lack of thinking at all) comes down to "Why do you think this agreement should be rammed thru w/o debate?"
Where did I say it should? Of course, I didn't say anything remotely close to that. But you have a penchant for addressing things people didn't say, instead of addressing what they DID say.
It is all of a piece here, though, isn't it? That kind of black-and-white thinking (once the sole domain of the right-wing) has become pervasive here on DU: If you don't trust Snowden/Greenwald, you're for domestic surveillance. If you believe that not ALL cops are out to murder minorities, you're for police brutality. If you think OWS was ineffective and disorganized, you're for the 1%.
That kind of thinking is right up there with: If you support a woman's right to choose, you are for the murder of innocent babies. If you believe in sex education in our schools, you are for the idea that teenagers should engage in sex without restraint. If you support same-sex marriage, you are for bestiality and incest.
Sound familiar?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And what the hell is this all about?
Sound familiar?
Are you are suggesting that I am on board with any of that?
You claim that I put words in your mouth but you never commit yourself other than to make it clear that you support whatever President Obama says.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... was an example of how the black-and-white thinking of right-wingers has become the black-and-white thinking of some so-called True Progressives (TM) here on DU.
Simply put, "If you don't agree with A, you obviously support the exact opposite." Simplistic thinking for the simple-minded.
I have not opined on the TPP because I don't know what will be in the finalized version. And neither do you.
But unlike you, I do not jump on-board with the opinions expressed by those who have determined (based on no evidence whatsoever) that the TPP will destroy democracy as we know it. That's probably because I am not desperate to be invited to sit at the "cool table" in the DU High School cafeteria, as you so obviously are.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...you choose to follow President Obama's lead on this issue, but he not the only political leader in the Democratic party (and in our caucus). Many of our political leaders have questioned the trade pact and the 'fast-track' authority the President is asking Congress to revive for this treaty.
It's remarkable how you can come to this thread and suggest opposition to this trade pact is based on some sort of popularity cult while, apparently, your own unfaltering support of President Obama should be seen as infallible and sincere.
I can only conclude that your claim that opposition to the TTP is 'based on no evidence whatsoever' is a result of your own unwillingness to take into account any view other than the administration's. I would remind you that issues which relate to our nation's economic well-being are as much the responsibility and under the authority of our Senators and Representatives as they are the Executive. In understanding that, and in light of the dearth of public knowledge of the final details of this trade pact (as you admit) being offered by the president or his administration, it has become increasingly necessary to look to our legislators for that information and guidance.
More than 150 Democrats in the House of Representatives have signed letters to the U.S. chief negotiators expressing opposition to a "fast track" procedure for voting on the proposed agreement.
Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. summarizes the most prominent source of information which has been revealed about the actual content of the trade proposal (the source cited by Sen. Sanders in his letter in the op and confirmed by others in Congress, as well, who have had limited access to the contents) :
____It is quite amazing that a treaty like the TPP can still be promoted as a "free trade" agreement when its most economically important provisions are the exact opposite of "free trade" – the expansion of protectionism.
Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.
All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines. It is interesting to see how much worse the TPP is than the WTO's Trips (Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights). This, too, was a massive rip-off of consumers and patients throughout the world, but after years of struggle by health advocates and public interest groups, some of its worst features were attenuated, and further consolidation of pharmaceutical companies' interests were blocked.
In case you were wondering why we had to get this information from WikiLeaks, it's because the draft negotiating texts are kept secret from the public. Even members of the US Congress and their staff have extremely limited access. Thus the much-maligned WikiLeaks has once again proven how valuable and justified are their efforts to bring transparency to important policy-making that is done in the darkness – whether it is "collateral murder", or other forms of life-threatening unaccountability.
One part of the TPP that shows why negotiators want to minimize public awareness of the agreement consists of provisions giving corporations the right – as is the case under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) – to directly sue governments for regulations that infringe upon their profits or potential profits. This, too, is much worse than the WTO, where a corporation has to convince its government to file a case against another government. These private enforcement actions – which if won collect from the defendant government – are judged by special tribunals outside of either country's judicial system, without the kinds of due process or openness that exists, for example, in the US legal system. A currently infamous example is the action by Lone Pine Resources, a Delaware-incorporated company, against the government of Quebec for its moratorium on fracking.
Perhaps less known than its other failings, the TPP doesn't even offer any economic gains for the majority of Americans who are being asked to sacrifice their constitutional rights. The gains from increased trade turn out to be so small that they are equivalent to a rounding error in the measurement of our GDP. The study most touted by proponents of the agreement, published by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, shows a cumulative increase of 0.13% of GDP by 2025. This would be trivial in any case; but the worse news is that, taking into account some of the unequalizing effects of the agreement – these treaties tend to redistribute income upwards – a Centre for Economic and Policy Research study showed that most Americans will actually lose because of the TPP.
I really don't expect you to read this with any interest in understanding or accepting the information provided. I post this here as a hedge against this attempt by you (and others) to ridicule those of us who have expressed opposition to this treaty and the un-democratic manner in which it is being negotiated, and the expectation by the administration that they should merely vote up or down on a signed, done deal.
As you should well know, trust-based advocacy in political affairs amounts to nothing more than capitulation. Activism for the issues, interests, and concerns that we believe in requires that we begin with our unflagging demands, with the expectation and insistence that our elected officials in Congress and the White House respond directly. None of these political expectations will be well-served if the substance of our advocacy is merely comprised of a compliant thumbs-up or a thumbs-down.
We have enough knowledge of how these trade deals work to, at the very least, put our demands at the outset of our advocacy. We have enough knowledge of our own interests and concerns to place those at the head of our advocacy and activism. We have right now, at least, a cursory understanding of the contents of this trade pact to demand that our interests and concerns are represented and addressed in the final bill.
Those who suggest we 'wait' to see the final trade pact before criticizing it ignore or disregard the aim of the administration to ram it through Congress without amendments and with limited debate. As legislators like Sen. Sanders and others have remarked, corporate interests and representatives have already had access to the process of crafting the treaty; not so with our elected officials who are expected by the administration to line up behind an already signed agreement without any real input at all.
What we need right now to counter that corporate access and effort is real and present activism. Belittling those who are attempting that effort is as antithetical to the process of democracy as this autocratic exercise of Executive power the President is engaged in. The American people (including those who have expressed their concerns on this message board) deserve better.
related:
WikiLeaks Exposes What Obama's Secret Trade Deal Would Do To The Environment (pdf)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/tpp-environment_n_4602727.html
WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter (updated)
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I have not said that I am for the TPP, not have I said I am against it. Therefore, I am not following anyone's lead. The reason I have not opined on the agreement one way or the other is a simple one: I don't know what's in it yet, nor do I pretend to understand the intricate and complex economic and legal details of such a treaty. nor their potential impact.
I did not suggest that "opposition to this trade pact is based on some sort of popularity cult". What I did suggest - and quite rightly so - is that some posters here base their "opinions" not on the facts of an issue, but on the positions taken by those they perceive to be the "cool kids" on DU. This becomes obvious when said people are asked directly why they are "for" or "against" something, and they will dance around the topic forever without ever ONCE coming up with a reason for why they hold the position they do. Those are the people whose "opposition to the TTP is based on no evidence whatsoever".
"I post this here as a hedge against this attempt by you (and others) to ridicule those of us who have expressed opposition to this treaty ..."
I have not ridiculed anyone who has expressed such an opinion. What I have ridiculed - and will continue to do so - are those who continually rage that this pact will destroy democracy as we know (I use that as a catch-all phrase for all of the hyperbolic terms frequently used) when they have no idea what's in it, and can't explain exactly WHY they oppose it.
You'll forgive me if I question the credibility of certain posters who vociferously oppose the TPP who also just happen - by mere coincidence, I'm sure - to just as vociferously oppose every decision Obama has ever made, every stance he has ever taken, every position he has ever held, every statement he has ever uttered, and every idea he has ever proposed.
There are certain patterns some of us tend to notice.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 1, 2015, 05:33 AM - Edit history (1)
rhett o rick made the observation that Sen. Sanders and others had expressed concerns which resonate. Some reasons WHY were listed.
1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.
8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.
10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal
...these would seem to be reasonable enough to merit response.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... to rhyme off a list of what the TPP will do - without explaining how it will actually do such things.
When you have the details of how the TPP will result in all of the above, I will be all ears.
It's easy for me to say, "The passage of Bill XXX will cause all of the following ..." But if I can't explain exactly HOW Bill XXX will do what I've claimed it will do, I'm just talking out of my ass, aren't I?
bigtree
(85,975 posts)...these issues and concerns have been the subject of discussion for years since the treaty was proposed. Each of these have substantial arguments buttressing them. I'll accept that this isn't enough of a presentation of the rationale for these questions and don't provide a good platform for debate. However, they are real concerns which deserve attention and are not just the product of some internet dilettantism.
On this forum, we get folks from all walks of life, from different stations. It's not for me to judge whether one issue or the other is important or vital to their interest or concern. Some may well appear trivial, others complex. That's the nature of our diverse electorate. That's the landscape which our elected officials should be expected to accept and navigate; not just ultra-intellectual or professional interests, but a myriad of interests, ideals, and issues from a diverse collection of individuals from different regions of the country. That's what I believe we're going to find in this forum, and I think that's what's represented in many of the responses on this thread.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... about issues that have, and should be, discussed, debated, and analyzed - TPP being one of them.
And I agree that there are valid concerns, and questions that need to be answered on this topic, along with many others.
However, when I see opinions expressed by any poster who refuses to provide any factual support for said opinions, I must question the veracity of those opinions, and the motives behind expressing them.
bigtree
(85,975 posts)
...nice talking with you, Nance.NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Maybe we should Google "why are bigtree and Nance are still up at this hour" - but that would just mean another hour on the 'net.
Nice talking with you, too.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)And exactly who is the "we" you are suggesting you represent?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... I said nothing about being in favour of "secret laws", nor anything remotely like that.
Secondly, you are not now, nor have you ever been a spokesperson for "We the People", nor a majority thereof.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)The TPP is an international trade agreement that is currently being negotiated. There have been no "laws" enacted as a result thereof, secret or otherwise.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This is an obviously organized effort. Just look at the size of this thread. What is the motive for this gargantuan participation? And all the usual suspects.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Trust them? Trust the President? Hardly. If private equity doesn't get you, the trade deals will. They could care less, they are all uncaring greedy millionaires.
They® lied about how new, technologically sophisticated jobs would replace the old ones we lost. We would be retrained, they said. Everything would be wonderful with NAFTA. There would be no labor issues, no environmental issues. They lied. They didn't misunderstand, they lied.
And they are lying now. They are lying again. I can see it. I can see it on their faces when they speak the words. No amount of eloquent speaking will change my mind. They hurt too many of us.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Painfully obvious.
"Follow the Money" even applies here.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)is the BEST kind!
Yes, painfully obvious.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)being railroaded by conservatives representing Big$$$.
Ironic one of those conservatives pops up here...to talk about Irony.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)but I know unintentional irony when I see it.
better believe it!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Better believe it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Can't say I blame you.
Yes, painfully obvious.
Encore.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)
in force, even!
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I'd ask my congressman, but he's in the dark too.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Home / Trade Agreements / Free Trade Agreements / Trans-Pacific Partnership / TPP Issue-by-Issue Information Centre
Labor
Ensuring respect for worker rights is a core value. That is why in TPP the United States is seeking to build on the strong labor provisions in the most recent U.S. trade agreements by seeking enforceable rules that protect the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining; discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor, including forced child labor; and establish mechanisms to monitor and address labor concerns.
Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:
Requirements to adhere to fundamental labor rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization, as well as acceptable conditions of work, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;
Rules that will ensure that TPP countries do not waive or derogate from labor laws in a manner that affects trade or investment, including in free trade zones, and that they take initiatives to discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor;
Formation of a consultative mechanism to develop specific steps to address labor concerns when they arise; and
Establishment of a means for the public to raise concerns directly with TPP governments if they believe a TPP country is not meeting its labor commitments, and requirements that governments consider and respond to those concerns.
For more information on trade and labor, visit https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/labor.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 31, 2015, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)for violating Mexican workers' rights to organize. The arbitration takes way too long (it averages a decade) but the unions have won something like three quarters of the cases they brought, which means Mexican workers really do have abilities to organize that they didn't before.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think NAFTA on the whole was pretty good but should be renegotiated to make it fairer to Mexican farmers. I think the labor gains for Mexican workers under NAFTA have been pretty impressive. CAFTA less so, because its labor regulations were less strict.
I think Fast Track should be a permanent Presidential power.
I think TPP is a marginally pointless treaty from what I've seen so far since it's leaving the existing bilats in place, so I don't think it's worth pissing off Vietnam and Brunei like it's going to just to keep what we already have.
djean111
(14,255 posts)existing laws or regulations threaten profits. We are giving corporations more power than sovereign countries.
Also, I am not so naive as to think the US is going to sue Vietnam to make them pay our minimum wage. In all likelihood, the Vietnamese are going to win contracts in the US because they pay their workers so little. And - the amount of contracts the US can bid on in the other countries pales next to the contracts that the other countries can win here in the US. Not even in the same ballpark.
The TTP and TTIP are all about the global powers of the Investor State. The five "trade" chapters of the twenty-eight chapter TTP are window dressing. It is the other chapters that the corporations wrote in secret that are the killers.
In any event, if you think the TTP is fine and dandy - just don't contact your representative in Congress. Easy peasy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) Vattel
(9,289 posts)Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)If you lose money on every deal, doing more of the same is only going to make it worse.
If course, then there is the small matter of multinational corporations fattening their bottom lines from seeking economic rents of overseas production; but ya see, that's just an ancillary benefit they weren't even thinking of when they crafted this turkey.
The shit shoveling by globalists is about to increase in intensity now.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Get informed, I mean? If it's such a big secret that even congress can't read what's in it... how is anyone supposed to get informed through anything other than what has been leaked?
If the people behind this crap are willing to share the information that's in the bill, then I'd be happy to get informed. Otherwise, Mr. President, I'm going to listen to the people I respect a great deal - who tell me that this TPP is some really bad stuff.
On the one hand... I like Obama, I really do... on the other hand... this trade deal has me thinking... WTF?
great white snark
(2,646 posts)I'll reserve my judgement while giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)big corporations to take good care of us, the ones that live in blissful ignorance? Taking a "head in the sand" approach?
Aren't people like Sen Sanders, who are actively trying to learn what the impact will be, better serving our democracy than those that accept the secrecy and Fast Tracking?
Reserving judgment until after the damage is done is willfully ignoring history. We've been here before. There are other countries that are struggling with their similar agreements. Germany is being sued by a nuclear corporation because Germany's decision not to continue building nuclear plants is hurting the profits of the nuclear company. Something similar is happening in Canada.
We need to have transparency.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ObamaTradeCampaignStatementsFINAL.pdf
“
I will replace Fast Track with a process that includes criteria determining appropriate negotiating
partners that includes an analysis of labor and environmental standards as well as the state of civil
society in those countries. Finally, I will ensure that Congress plays a strong and informed role in our
international economic policy and in any future agreements we pursue and in our efforts to amend
existing agreements.”8
“I oppose extending or renewing the current Fast Track authority as designed, but would support a
redesigned process that provided for greater transparency, more democratic participation, and required
labor and environmental provisions in the core of agreements.”9
“I will not support extension of the existing Fast Track process that expired. I have not and would not
support renewing Trade Promotion Authority for this President. The current Fast Track process does
not mandate that agreements include binding labor and environmental protections nor does it give an
adequate role to Congress in the selection and design of agreements. I will work with Congres
sional leaders to ensure that any new TPA authority fix these basic failings and open up the process to the
American people for their participation and scrutiny.”10
Which Obama do you believe? Candidate Obama or President Obama?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts) 
riversedge
(70,084 posts)result in higher wages..."
ummm.. Is this even possible????
....Top House Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have drawn an additional line in the sand, saying they won't support any new trade deal before the administration can demonstrate that the result will be higher wages for American workers.
"The impact on the paychecks of America’s workers is the standard that we will use," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday......
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/231238-obama-tells-dems-to-keep-their-powder-dry-in-trade-fight
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 2banon
(7,321 posts)it restores some measure of hope reading through the various posts in this thread (so far) .. lots of righteously concerned activists identifying precisely what's at issue on this matter.
And like someone alluded to up thread, we've been through this shit before with NAFTA and a panoply of other so called "FREE" Trade agreements. We correctly predicted the outcome prior to each one of these agreements in the past, only to see our concerns become reality time and time and time again. It's astonishing to see ANY long time DU'r here voicing support (in one manner or another) for the president on this matter.
Indeed, the letter from Bernie Sanders is rather on point, I would say.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)Aren't the text of the proposed treaty and the negotiations surrounding it all being conducted in secret?
What kind of attitude does it take to negotiate a secret treaty then bash people for not knowing the very information you are keeping secret? That's a 1%er move if there ever was one.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)It's still very much a work in progress.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)This is something that could have an enormous impact on the public. This is a public issue not a representatives-only issue. We are the ones who need to decide what we want to live with, not have that decision made for us by people hiding behind secrecy.
If I can't call my Congressman and get the same copy of the treaty text that he is basing his own decisions on, we have a problem.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Otherwise, there'd be no need to Fast Track it. Fast Track IS to keep the text hidden until law.
http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-deal-isnt-secret-says-us-official-access-text-highly-1793274
Generic Brad
(14,272 posts)I thought it was just a collection of links to other news sources they package as their own. It sure seems that way.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)nt
