General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow can a person who fights for the TPP be considered a friend of the 99%?
I just don't get it.
Elizabeth Warren has it right, it's an awful assault that the oligarchs are trying to keep secret so we can't fight back.
- Elizabeth Warren
It's a sickness. The rich and powerful have stolen enough from us, they don't need new laws to steal even more.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(67,360 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)I am not looking forward to the Hillary camp expounding on why the TPP IS TOO a great and wondrous deal!!!!!!!
And curious to see if hating on the TPP will be verboten if Hillary is crowned. To see if DU will just become a Third Way mouthpiece.
The spoils of "winning" sure are shrinking.
Remember, America is a business, not a country.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)
antigop
(12,778 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thanks. 
cprise
(8,445 posts)He just kept predicting disaster after disaster that we've been living through. Goldsmith was brilliant.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Martin Eden
(12,844 posts)Small consolation he was proven right.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)… the middle class in this country.
The fact that it's been done in secret should cause Americans to be angry in the streets. The fact that more don't care is a horrible indictment against average Americans. It seems Americans are just going to roll over and let the elites radically reshape American society. It's pretty sad that so many Americans have failed to be what I would consider active and good citizens. Being a good citizen takes work whether it's to keep your country at it's best or to rebuild and better your country. People that fail to be engaged and involved as a citizen quite simply allow and enable what's happened in this country over the past few decades. The elite couldn't get away with it without their LACK of effort. They suck.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I would be surprised if Fox is talking much about this, despite being able to do a "what is Obama hiding?" routine with it.
I went to Foxnews.com and searched for "TPP" and the most recent article was from April. And it's all mostly AP stuff.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But the cocksuckers have co-opted the entire media and blasted us with constant misinformation. It is little wonder they are winning.
Uncle Joe
(58,282 posts)Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)They either have to make these deals in secrecy or at gunpoint.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Those were great words.
This is why it's so important to vet candidates carefully these days ,and not to be fooled by the letters after someone's name.
cprise
(8,445 posts)I know it was just a passing remark, but at some point Warren has to realize the beneficiaries of treaties like TPP are counting on foibles of party politics to advance their cause while the issue stays submerged.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Elizabeth needs to understand what is at stake.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)The enemy of my enemy is also fully capable of also being my enemy rather than even the most dicey of friends.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Although the White House thinks it's just peachy keen.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Way to go, Manny!
antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)If transparency (or labeling) would lead to opposition, then we shouldn't be transparent (or label).
Because "we" know better than "the people" what is good for them.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)RIP
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)If the 99 percent are impoverished, all the other good work the democratic party tries to do won't mean shit.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,521 posts)Thank you, my dear Populist_Prole.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
AAO
(3,300 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but they want it and will probably get it- they own enough politicians on both sides of the aisle
to get it done. K&R
randome
(34,845 posts)Always having to check a list to see what pleases you.
I don't care much for the TPP either, but I'm also not going to imply Obama is my 'enemy' because of it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)unmitigated acts of war against the 99%, like attacking Social Security.
They make it quite clear as to who's on our side, and who ain't.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or maybe the President doesn't get everything he works for?
Or maybe it was an alien impostor who created the Catfood Commission, and proposed cuts himself?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They're 'off' for the election season. Of course they are because NO ONE who is a Democrat will be elected if they show any sign of supporting the Chained CPI. But it will be back, probably during the Lame Duck Congress. Care to make a bet?
I expect Repubs to try to cut SS benefits, but Democrats? That was a shock.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They are always on the table.
And the perpetually disgruntled remain disgruntled.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)members of society, most of whom EARNED those benefits.
Sorry you are offended by what has been traditionally a Democratic issue and to my recollection the ONLY time SS benefits EVER got close to being on the table was when Republicans put them there, only to LOSE due to the efforts of the Dem Party.
As I said and repeat, to see a Dem now join Repubs in placing those earned benefits of the most vulnerable Americans up for grabs was a SHOCK. No matter how anyone tries to defend it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You guys desperately need new writers.
The Third Way Campaign of Threats to cut Social Security was and remains viciously damaging.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4535966
The threats were used by the corporate Third Way to implement real austerity, *and* they were used to poison the Democratic Party's message and entrench the lying Republican narrative tying Social Security to the deficit and implying that deficit cutting is the most important goal for the country.
Every Democrat, every American, should be sick of the constant Third Way implication that these Social Security threats have been just words and didn't harm anyone. They have harmed EVERYONE.
1. Without the threatened axe of Social Security cuts (which kept returning as the austerity kept escalating), the Third Way would never have been able to sell the vicious budget and social program cuts they HAVE inflicted on Americans...by justifying them as the lesser of two evils.
If you had told us a few years ago that the Barack Obama administration would be presiding over government spending that assaults the poor even more viciously than the RYAN plan, we would never have believed it. Yet that is exactly where we found ourselves, surrounded by corporate mouthpieces exhorting us to be grateful, "because he didn't cut Social Security."2. For years, Republicans have drummed lies into the heads of the American people about the source of our economic problems and how to fix them. They have pushed vicious austerity and malignant, economy-starving deficit-cutting instead of the real help to the 99 percent that is needed, and they have preached lies about the need to cut SS and LIES about its contribution to the deficit.
President Obama had from Day One of this Presidency to change the narrative about deficits and Social Security. Instead, he has yet again cemented the Republican narrative and made it a "bipartisan" narrative in a way that will not be undone anytime soon.
And this TEMPORARY suspension of the threats, of course during an election year, and of course simultaneously repeating Republican lies about how the deficit will cause them to return in the future....is the obscene Third Way cherry on top.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)TPP may never see the light of day, at any rate.
You have to dig through this article, but there are nuggets in it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/29/trans-pacific-partnership_n_5541222.html
One key issue, sources say, involves the controversial investor-state clause that allows private firms to sue governments if they feel they have been unfairly thwarted in their operations.
Several European countries, including Germany, are said to be balking at signing because they fear they will have to offer the same arrangement to U.S. companies, which are notoriously more litigious than those in Canada. As well, the Europeans are concerned U.S. firms would be able to piggy-back on CETA to sue in Europe through their Canadian subsidiaries.
Further complicating matters, committee chairs from 16 European parliaments sent a letter last week to European trade commission Karel de Gucht asking him to consider CETA, and the Europe-U.S. trade deal if it comes to fruition, "mixed agreements" that require ratification from all 28 member national parliaments.....U.S. President Barack Obama has set his sights on the Asia-Pacific summit in November for arriving at an agreement-in-principle, although Australia's trade minister said recently the first half of 2015 is more realistic.
Even that deadline may be too optimistic, say analysts, given that Obama has not secured fast-track authority to negotiate a deal from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, or even the Senate. The prospects that the mid-term elections in November will return a more friendly Congress appear slim, they note.
Fast-track authority gives the White House the green light to negotiate an agreement and send it to Congress for an up or down vote but, without it, any deal struck with the U.S. can be picked apart later by special interests in Congress.
"If I was negotiating I'd be quite skeptical about what can be delivered," explained Kronby. "You make concessions and you make a deal and the U.S. comes back a year or two later and says it's not good enough."
Marr
(20,317 posts)A host of other politicians and CEOs are very much for it. I don't see why "it's so awful it might not pass" is any sort of defense.
MADem
(135,425 posts)counter the influence of other nations. They are "for" the "alliance."
Since nothing has yet been agreed to, it's impossible for them to be "for" a final product that has not yet been finalized.
And again, it's two thirds of the Senate that has to go along with this effort. If you think two out of three Senators are going to be 'for' something that the bulk of America virulently opposes, well, I suppose that's what makes sense to you.
I don't think two out of three Senators are that close to retirement age--because if the treaty is a real suckfest, that's what they'd have to do.
Marr
(20,317 posts)We know several of the agenda items our own government is actively pushing for. We don't need to wait until the deal is done and signed to complain about it. In fact, that would kind of be pointless.
And you really don't think the US Senate passes very unpopular legislation when it's what big money wants? That's a relief-- I guess those bank bailouts weren't crammed though after all.
MADem
(135,425 posts)at the OP.
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2014/07/11/gordon-campbell-on-this-weeks-tpp-talks-and-the-election-meltdown-in-afghanistan/
I'm not naive--I just don't think this effort is as much of a "done deal" at the Abandon Hope OP suggests.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)That only requires a simple majority.
MADem
(135,425 posts)singing in tune with others at the table, secrecy notwithstanding. And others who have been at it for awhile are getting a bit wishy washy as well.
Those 161 (and counting) Democrats lining up in opposition to the TPP and TPA must be of concern to the Obama administration. The secrecy about what is on the negotiating table with the TPP is also hurting Obama, politically. “What it boils down to is that Congress is out of the picture,” added Rep. Louise Slaughter told the Washington Trade Daily:
Over the past two years, some two-dozen Congressional letters have gone to the Administration asking for more information on the TPP talks. Very few were ever answered or even acknowledged, WTD was told. Letters touch on several topics – the US Buy America law, currency manipulation, workers’ rights, access to medicines for poor countries, enforcement of environmental rules, human rights issues, “fast track”, intellectual property rights, financial regulations and food safety, among others. ...On other TPP fronts: Chile’s new, centre left government has been consistently lukewarm at best, to the TPP. Last week, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet indicated that Chile wanted to ensure the TPP did not create new trade problems for Chile, which already had free trade deals with most of the countries involved. ...As for Japan…the US and Japan are continuing to conduct their own bilateral trade talks in parallel with the TPP, and have reached their own agreement on tariff levels. Japan is still considering whether other TPP countries will enjoy the same provisions. In Ottawa, this morning’s Japan News (via Yomiuri Shimbun) says that agreement has been reached in Ottawa on two of what are only the least contentious areas – child labour and slavery labour standards, and quarantine standards.
Aiming to reach a basic accord by the end of this year, the nations involved intend to settle discussions in less contentious areas while postponing such difficult matters as reform of state-owned companies.
Postponed again. At this rate, the hopes expressed by President Barack Obama that “some kind of draft” for the TPP would be ready for the next APEC meeting in November looks – as usual – highly optimistic.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)thanks, madem - encouragement for cooler heads.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)He wants it so badly. Why? This President makes me suspicious.
MADem
(135,425 posts)How do you think you would have done with Romney? Would he have eased your mind?
Don't hold your breath for any of that Romneycare, now--he was for it before he was agin' it, but he was agin' it when he was running for the Oval Office...
I think Obama may never see this long, drawn out series of trade negotiations pass. I think his successor might not see it either, at least not in the iteration that concerns so many people.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)That is your response? Ever try any subterfuge?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)would be stupid not to participate in the talks, even if TPP is unlikely to pass here.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)They require a simple majority in the House and Senate.
MADem
(135,425 posts)politicians (to say nothing of the countries at the table, or their constituencies) as the OP would have you believe.
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2014/07/11/gordon-campbell-on-this-weeks-tpp-talks-and-the-election-meltdown-in-afghanistan/
Harry Reid is not onboard, either.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/harry-reid-fast-track_n_4598486.html
WASHINGTON -- The fast track trade bill introduced in the Senate last week will go nowhere anytime soon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee and President Barack Obama's pick to be his next ambassador to China, offered the legislation last week...(that)... would essentially give the White House the power to present Congress with trade agreements that lawmakers could not amend. ... But if those opponents were worried the fast-track measure might advance, Reid was emphatic in saying it would not -- at least for now.
Asked if he told Baucus that Reid would make time on the floor of the U.S. Senate to debate the measure, Reid said "No," four times.
"There's a lot of controversy on that, and I'm going to see how that plays out with my caucus and the Senate.," Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill.
Indeed, many Democrats are so unhappy with the current draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they are willing to kill it even though it is a key element of Obama's ambitious pivot toward Asia.
If they can't do fast track, they'd have to run it through as a treaty and that does require 2/3 of the Senate.
And I don't think that would fly, either.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Please stop putting words in the OP's mouth. The OP has a big mouth, and will speak all the words he intends to speak. And I think that many on this site understand this.
MADem
(135,425 posts)should be given to the Hair-on-Fire/Sky-is-Falling pronouncements in the OP. And I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was simply filling in the information that you neglected to put forward while you attempted to create an atmosphere of high drama and emergency and Good Guys v. Bad Guys when, in actual fact, the good guys aren't necessarily all good and the bad guys aren't necessarily all bad...and nothing is going to happen on this issue until after November, certainly, and maybe not even next year, or the year after.
Your hero Sen. Wyden is, as I pointed out in this thread, "fighting for the TPP" with his "Smart Track" bait and switch and his conciliatory speeches to fat cat lobbying groups. So, is he an "Enemy of the 99%?" Inquiring minds want to know!
This is not a done deal, yet you're acting like King Obama has issued a decree and there's nothing for us serfs to do but obey. You're painting a typically divisive and cartoonish landscape--and it's obvious.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I just named him as the person who spearheaded the movement to inform Congress of the TPP proceedings.
How about you quit making stuff up. If I suck as broadly and deeply as you claim, it should be easy to show it without making stuff up.
MADem
(135,425 posts)In other words, still ram it through, but in a friendlier fashion...he's a happy warrior for the TPP cause, and he wants to remove tariffs on already cheap clothing and sneakers! Yeah, he's a real champion of the American worker...only he isn't.
Your words: How can a person who fights for the TPP be considered a friend of the 99%?
How about you quit making stuff up--you're the one who called people like Wyden one of those people who aren't friends--i.e., enemies, not me.
You're the one who creates these divisive and hyperbolic threads, not me. Why are you surprised when people notice and object to your broad-brushing?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)important to make it the huge issue it IS right NOW.
The ONLY reason this isn't a done deal YET, is they ARE waiting until after the election, which we USED to do btw, until we learned the tactics of deception employed in order to get those most likely to pass such an abominable piece of legislation not written by our elected officials, but by foreign Corps, into place.
Why are Corporations writing US legislation and denying those elected to do so any access to what they are up to?
MADem
(135,425 posts)House, and THEY aren't sold on this. They won't be sold after November, either, because 2016 is just around the corner.
As I've said, there aren't that many people serving in the House or Senate who are nearing retirement and can afford to cast a Doom My Incumbency vote.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm loving it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)from the CAFTA countries trying to get away from violent gangs. These trade agreements destroy the economies and the social structures of many of the nations who enter into them. We should stop entering trade agreements. We have lost jobs and increased our trade deficit with these agreements. We need to wise up and put an end to the agreements.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Renegotiating CAFTA is a separate issue. I doubt we'll throw it out entirely, no matter what people want, at this stage.
Is it a cautionary tale for TPP? We won't know until we see what they're proposing. I do think we should push for that, but I don't think it's helpful to label people with "Friend" and "Enemy" designators.
It's cartoonish. Simple. It turns a serious issue affecting all our lives into a game, a contest.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)it needs to be kept secret because if we knew what was in it, we'd be against it.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=164
Wake up.
randome
(34,845 posts)Negotiating in secret is essential to keep special interests out. Passage through Congress is where anyone can weigh in on it.
A Democracy can't function if 300 million people vote on every single aspect of the government. That's why we elect representatives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)"Negotiating in secret is essential..."
Wow. Just, wow.
Nothing should ever be kept secret from the American people, except for perhaps highly secret military operations, and even then I'm willing to be convinced that those should be public.
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe this won't work out in our favor? That maybe instead of being sunshine and rainbows for the rest of us, we'll be screwed yet again like we have been for the last decade and more?
Keeping conservatives from weighing jn on it means we can't either, and funny enough, I don't trust that a bit. "Passage through Congress is where anyone can weigh in on it." Well yeah, kinda the point of having a Congress instead of a dictatorship. Somehow I don't think you would have liked this idea so much when Bush and the conservatives had power instead.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Transparency, I think, has become very necessary, if it ever was not. We cannot simply trust that some people in positions of power have our best interests in mind. We need to watch them, listen to them, observe their actions, their words - their votes. After all, they are certainly watching us. Perhaps we need some sort of American activist group to spy on our government - the same way it is spying on us. No, modern investigative journalism, generally speaking, is not nearly enough.
I'd have an easier time deciding where I stand on this TPP thing if I knew what the hell it was.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)but virtually nobody else, because the President is worried that special interests might cause naughty things to happen.
Epic.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)That is just one of the President's many endearing qualities. Manny, when will you ever accept the true and excellent nature of the president? Geez.
Conservatives are running the show in "free trade" agreements.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Brunei, one of the parties in this agreement, calls for the stoning to death of gays and lesbians, and public flogging of women who have had abortions.
The administration does not seem to be too concerned about them weighing in.
They have full access to the contents of the negotiation along with 600 corporate stakeholders while you, me and the rest of the American public are shut out.
This doesn't sound at all promising.
How about we just forget about the TPP?
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)this is more like facsim or the catholic church. keeping truth from us - the peons? outrageous.
but, it is being done as we speak - lists of fracking chemicals kept secret as proprietary formulas; the location of explosive compounds/chemical storage facilities (texas) made into law by their attorney general when no one was paying attention during the first week in may; secret meetings behind closed doors in local communities to block public input or comment; locked and guarded doors to the offices of elected representatives, etc.
bullying people never works.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)of democratic protections to give ruling power to corporations.
We need to stop being shy about using that word when it is absolutely appropriate.
The TPP and the TISA, and the secretive process being used to push them through, are fascistic to the core.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/56737/obama-tpp-trade-officials-got-hefty-bonuses-from-big-banks-as-reward-for-joining-govt
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This is the greatest threat this nation has ever faced.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Note all the women and children fleeing the CAFTA countries because the terrible violence and gangs that have become the rule there since we entered into CAFTA.
Lets wait and not enter into any more trade agreements until we have completely fixed our own infrastructure and created lots of jobs here. We don't need more places from which to import cheap trash. We used to make high quality products in the US. Our factories and the capacity of our workers to craft good products were taken to cheap labor markets. The products we are importing from those markets are not worth even the low prices we pay for them.
No more trade agreements. Period.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I want to see the agreement myself, and make up my own mind.
Further, you do know she grandstanded a bit in that speech? The reason that the bracketed text is not released is because all participating countries have agreed to keep negotiations secret--she's asking one guy if he will release something he does NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to release. It's great Senate theater, though--but it's hyperbolic. I think you're the only one that doesn't quite get all that.
Again, I'd like to see the material, too, but it's like asking the school janitor to suspend little Billy for smoking in the boy's room, instead of asking the school discipline committee--it isn't going to get the desired results any more than asking someone not authorized to release information to release it is.
You do know that Eliz. Warren once forced a battlefield program on the Pentagon that they didn't want and didn't need, that they'd asked be defunded, because she didn't want to be in a sketchy position of voting to eliminate an unneeded program that provided Bay State jobs?
People are human--they have interests. Her interests in that instance were local, and they ignored the larger interests of the country.
It is in her interest to be seen as the Banking Senator, the Take on Wall Street Senator, the Fight For the Fair Deal For the Little Guy Senator, and that comment was an effective way to make the point, even though she was asking the WRONG guy to do something he couldn't do.
I'm not saying she doesn't have a point about TPP, I'd simply like to make up my own mind. I'm also not saying we shouldn't continue to complain--along with people from other countries--to press for more transparency in the process.
The odds are, though, that you'll be railing about this for another year, because it is having trouble coming to pass, as my link illustrates. Too many disparate groups have varying objections, and they simply cannot come to agreement at all. That's part of the reason for the secrecy--they want to negotiate in a bubble, and not in the court of public opinion. I don't know if that's terribly smart, really, but there are players at the table with governments quite different from ours, or Canada's, who like it that way and don't want to have to deal with the complaints of assorted onlookers.
Demands by populations to make the process more transparent do not have to be accompanied by the Good v. Evil posturing you like to frame every issue with. Some people prefer discussions over calls to arms. In sum, your schtick is getting old.
I'd recommend that you grab the hose, and douse that snarky and dismissive Hair On Fire attitude you've got going on. This is going to be a long, long ride. It's not a "With 'em or Agin' 'em" scenario of the sort you love to construct. It's a vague and moving target. It's serious business, not a "Rally Your Minions/Talk in Cartoonish Generalities" issue.
I'm quite awake, thanks anyway (an example of your dismissive and cartoonish snark, that). I simply don't think your brand of humor and your immature divisiveness brings much light to go with the typically overwrought heat you're offering.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"I know that every other time I've sworn that I won't pull up the football at the last moment a free trade agreement will create jobs, I've pulled it up at the last moment the agreement has destroyed jobs, millions of 'em in total. But this time I really mean it! No, really!"
Who is it that's forcing the US to engage in secret negotiations? Please share, I'd love to know who the nasty bastards are that are holding a gun to our heads. As Elizabeth Warren pointed out in the link I provided, even the Bush administration was less secretive about "free" trade agreements than the Obama administration. Wow, huh?
"I don’t think about where NAFTA hasn’t lived up."
- Penny Pritzker, U.S. Commerce Secretary
We were promised that NAFTA would result in a net creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Instead, it destroyed 750,000 or so jobs. If you think that kind of @#$% from Ms. Pritzker means that the Obama administration is thoughtfully battling for the TPP because they want the 99% to stop our free fall... well, let's agree to disagree.
MADem
(135,425 posts)No one is "holding a gun to our heads," but you know that. There are elements of this trade agreement that might well be useful, and the potential partners in it don't want to do their dealing in public. Governments often don't like to be seen as capitulating, even if all they're doing is horse-trading.
But you know that, too.
And of course, any opportunity to plump up George, you'll take it!
Since you're such a smart feller, you do know how treaties get ratified, don't you? Or do you think that King Barack is going to wave his scepter and "Make it so?" Or maybe HE will hold a gun to the heads of two thirds of the Senate, is that it? Since whatever King Barack wants, the GOP says "Hell to the NO" to, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Ain't that right, Charlie Brown?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And I'd love to know who's forcing us to engage in secret talks.
And, on my taking any opportunity to "plump" George Bush? I guess that's more fun to say than "Geez Manny, you're right": clearly you have no good facts to refute Senator Warren on this so instead you switch to accusing me (and presumably Warren) of loving George Bush.
What garbage. Utter crap.
Given that only four senators voted against the rich Wall Street banker that Obama put in charge of negotiating the TPP, I suspect that it'll pass, particularly if Obama gets the "fast track" authority he wants. "Free" trade is good for bankers and CEOs alike, and thus both parties love it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There IS a distinction there, but you like to ignore those nuances and draw everything like a Charlie Brown cartoon--simple lines, few details.
You are the one who--without fail--will always compare George favorably to Obama. It's almost a signature move with you. Pardon me for noticing it. It's not "garbage" or "utter crap"--it's what you do, and you just did it in that post upthread.
You also try like hell to create a divisive atmosphere between POTUS and EW, but you seem to forget this rather key endorsement. That kind of adversarial thing is childish, yet you keep doing it. And people who are not politically savvy buy off on your BS.
Similarly, you love to craft these overwrought OPs that paint Hillary--or any Clinton--as some kind of evildoer, and EW as the Saint to the Clinton Sinners. Again, cartoon characterizations, that completely ignore the personal friendships and pragmatic relationships that exist between these individuals, all of whom are members of the DEMOCRATIC Party.
You display a complete lack of mature nuance when you compare the advise and consent role of the Senate with regard to a TREATY, which is a binding agreement entered into by our nation and which ties us to other nations on our honor for many decades at a minimum, with the right of a President to choose his own advisors for the duration of his term. These are entirely different decisions, made on a completely different plane of thought. The Senate doesn't have to like a Presidential pick (John Ashcroft, a shitload of the Supremes, for example), they simply have to be vetted for essential competence and an absence of conflicts of interest.
But there you go again, drawing with the Charlie Brown pencil! Why make DU a place where Democrats gather to support one another, when you can set to work playing Divide and Conquer Manny? You just can't help yourself, you just HAVE to snark and be snide, or come right out and be blatantly hurtful--you just can't seem to help yourself. It's as though you can't ever build up, you always tear down, divide, and find fault. And you don't let accuracy get in the way of your broad brush characterizations, either.
But hey, like I said, pardon me for noticing.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Let's take this slowly.
First off, please provide a reference demonstrating that the President agreed to keep these talks secret. Also, that he agreed to keep them secret from Congress, which as I'm sure you know he attempted to do until Sen. Wyden threatened legal action, which prompted Obama giving Congress extremely fettered access. While hundreds of US corporations have unfettered, real-time access. I'm sure that DU will appreciate knowing who it was that forced Obama to keep this all secret from Congress, then gave him permission to clue them in.
Second, assuming that it's true that President Obama actually signed up for secret talks, please provide a reference naming the enitity that forced him to sign up for these talks. How is it that the United States, the most powerful and wealthy country, is forced into these talks under conditions that others want but the US doesn't?
MADem
(135,425 posts)So come on, then--put up or shut up.
And they aren't kept secret from Congress, otherwise Senator Warren wouldn't have read the annotations and complained about them. And Wyden didn't "threaten" anyone, he simply followed Darryl Issa who fired the first salvo--this was a bipartisan effort (Merkley and Menendez participated as well), not a Wyden-as-Superman exercise...but that fits with your contentious descriptions of any event.
In May, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, leaked the entire draft intellectual property chapter of the deal on his website in order to highlight concerns raised by technology companies and protest the lack of access granted to congressional offices and nonprofit groups. The chapter had previously been available on the Internet through legally ambiguous channels.
Wyden raised the stakes in late May by introducing legislation that would require the Obama administration to share key trade documents with members of Congress and top staffers. The bill is generally viewed as a symbolic act of protest, and Wyden's office argues that its major provisions are already on the books. Both Issa and Wyden have strong relationships with Internet freedom advocacy groups and Silicon Valley companies through their opposition to the proposed House bill called the Stop Online Piracy Act and its Senate companion, the Protect IP Act.
Funny though--you're portraying Wyden as some kind of hero "threatening" Obama, and he's the guy who is selling "fast track" under the kinder, friendlier, and gentler "smart track" term. SSDD. Far be it from me to tout anything coming out of AEI, but when those bastards start praising Wyden for his approach to TPP, maybe you should ratchet back on the hero worship of the guy.
I think you aren't in command of your facts, there, Manny. Wyden should be on your "Bad Guy" team. http://www.american.com/archive/2014/april/ron-wyden-free-trader/
It’s a new ball game in the Senate on trade: Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), who has succeeded Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana), as chairman of the Finance Committee, seems understandably determined to place his own stamp on trade policy — including on legislation to provide special procedures for congressional vetting of new trade agreements (so-called Trade Promotion Authority), and on the substance of the agreements now being negotiated. The new chairman has made it clear he would scrap, or substantially alter, the bipartisan TPA bill crafted by Senator Baucus, in alliance with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman David Camp (R-Michigan), and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Until recently, Wyden was reticent about disclosing his own specific views on urgent, pending issues, but last week he gave a speech in which he began to clarify where he will attempt to take trade policy: it’s a mixed bag of attitudes and proposals, though by no means antithetical to a free market agenda.
First, some good news: Wyden chose to make his policy debut before the American Apparel and Footwear Association, a lobbying organization for the multinational companies and groups that import clothing and shoes, either as finished goods or as components: these groups have a big stake in knocking down barriers. Wyden took on the powerful, protectionist textile/apparel and footwear lobbies, arguing for lower tariffs: “Trade agreements need to be equally ambitious on footwear and apparel … reflect[ing] those industries as they are in this century — not as they were in the last one.” Before getting too righteous here, it should be noted that multinational Nike is based in Wyden’s home state, Oregon — which pits it (and Wyden) against “Made in America” New Balance, located in Maine and strongly championed and protected by that state’s senators and congressmen from both parties.
Showing his high-tech, West Coast background, Wyden also gave a strong plug for open digital markets and trade, arguing that 21st-century agreements should protect the free flow of data and resist attempts to confine data and servers within national boundaries. No doubt causing heartburn for the U.S. entertainment and internet content providers, the chairman also took aim at moves to make the internet highway companies (viz, Google, Facebook) legally responsible for content (he specifically called out recent legislative proposals such as SOPA and PIPA as examples). He concluded: “It’s as simple as this: the internet, which is really the shipping lane of the 21st century, has to be kept open and free.”
Hmmm. All politics is local. Surprise, surprise.
All countries around the table have mutually agreed to keep their negotiations quiet up to this point. Every nation at that table is there because they think they can cut a deal that favors them in some way or another. No one wants to show their hand and have their negotiating strategies second-guessed. Is that too hard for you to grasp?
Some politicians in the USA as well as Canada and Chile and New Zealand and other nations are starting to gripe about it in response to the pushback from their constituencies, but the governments--to this point, anyway-- haven't taken the decision to release the material.
So yeah, "let's take this slowly" because that's how it is going to progress. You're the only one who believes otherwise.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)when I ask for evidence, you claim that *I* should provide the evidence myself.
As if this thread wasn't bizarre enough...
MADem
(135,425 posts)You couldn't be more obvious if you tried, you know. You're the one obsessing about it, even as the legislators have access to the material.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) roseBudd
(8,718 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)that this is a very bad deal. You haven't done the research if you don't know that. There have been leaks on chapters and on U.S. positions. Start here: http://www.citizen.org/TPP, and here: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You do know that Darryl Issa published those leaks on his webpage--it's not like they're secret anymore. And there are objections from a number of corners, yes--none of this is a surprise. You don't have to give me links to the opposing or even the supporting views, I have done the research and I am aware of the objections in many corners--to include the objections of people who aren't living in the USA. I've provided some of those links in this thread.
Painting people as "friends of the 99 percent" -- or, if they aren't friends, what are they--enemies? -- is what I find stupid and cartoonish. And as I've pointed out, at least one person touted as a friend is actually in favor of reducing tariffs so that our markets can be flooded with more cheap foreign apparel. But hey, who'd know that if they didn't do their research?
It's hard as hell to find any nuance on this board anymore. It's all RAH RAH "LOVE" this one/"HATE" that one, like a junior high school cafeteria.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Fortunately, she's got enough integrity and courage not to listen that BUM that a certain person felt the need to put in his cabinet!
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/04/29/stunning-quote-larry-summers-to-elizabeth-warren-in-2009-insiders-dont-criticize-other-insiders/
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)from taking another crack at us as head of the Fed.
Thank goodness!
Armstead
(47,803 posts)What has come out is pretty damning. And add experience of other agreements, and it is indefensible.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Assuming "fast track" succeeds (and that is looking less and less likely), we'll have three months to gripe about it. The Congress is able to look at portions already. It's still a work in progress, though in its current iteration, it is a work that many aren't too pleased about.
If you want to see portions of it, Darryl Issa (R-CAr Thief/Arsonist) has put chunks of it up on his website--they're the chunks that Assange released.
They just finished up in Canada doing some more hashing this week--perhaps they were talking about releasing more information, particularly since the Canadians--both citizens and legislators-- have expressed some displeasure as to the way the negotiations are progressing as well.
http://www.canadians.org/tpp
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tpp-trade-talks-too-secret-ndp-mp-don-davies-says-1.2703010
We're not at that tipping point yet, but I think we're closer than we were several months ago. Hyperbole like the OPs, though, doesn't advance discussion or understanding of the issues.
As I've pointed out, if anyone involved in this effort is an "enemy of the 99%" then Ron Wyden, despite his letter to Kirk (with 3 others), as a consequence of his "smart track," is one of those enemies. And that's just ... absurd.
treestar
(82,383 posts)too, and expected to agree to that. It's like there is no choice. No one really understands it here, so it's just being used to troll us. Trade agreements between countries may be good or bad, depending on the agreement. The people negotiating it - we are asked to deem them terrible people wanting to harm most of us and I don't buy that - they would try to get us the best deal they could.
MADem
(135,425 posts)why they don't want to give us "live updates." I think a happy medium, where there's a blackout while drafts are crafted, and then a release of a proposed section with an opportunity for public comment, would probably work best. No one likes people looking over their shoulder while they're working, but we should have a chance to have a look at the parts they've finished and have time to jawbone about it before it goes to any sort of vote. Then, if there are huge objections, they can go back to the table and fix them. I think most other countries where protests have occurred would buy off on this kind of arrangement.
In any event, we're a long way from anything resembling a vote to fast track this thing. There are way too many legislators digging in their heels (ironically, some of them have been called "enemies" here for other reasons, because they haven't done this or that to suit) --it's not a done deal by a long shot, but you'd never know that by reading the OP.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What we can be certain of is that if it's anything like previous "trade agreements" it won't help the 99%. We've seen leaked portions, leaked because our elected representatives don't see clear that we need to know, so it's not unreasonable to believe that if they don't want us to see it, we probably won't like it. Experts that have looked at portions of it and are familiar with the process conclude that it will strongly favor corporations AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 99%. I've seen no expert testimony that says otherwise. When I ask my Democratic Senators about it, both give me bs rhetoric and make it crystal clear that those put out of work will be retrained with taxpayer money. In other words, they expect the TPP to cause a loss of American jobs and will provide taxpayer money (not corporate) to "retrain". I ask, "retrain" for what? How to flip burgers?
The fact that the Pres might have a hard time ramming this down our throats doesn't address the question of the OP,
"How can a person who fights for the TPP be considered a friend of the 99%?". How do you respond?
And those here in DU that avoid, like the plague, discussing this extremely important issue are most likely just afraid to admit they support it.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Ron Wyden isn't a friend of the 99 percent, if we're to "buy" the premise being sold in the OP. Yes, he signed the "We Want to Look" letter--with three others--to Kirk, but he also is the architect of "smart track." He's the one who wants reduced tariffs for clothing importers. He's the one who backs the offshore sneaker manufacturers over the Made in USA ones. Sound like competing priorities to you? Sure as hell does to me.
This is a COMPLEX issue, that's my point. There are a lot of moving parts. There are objections from a number of corners. There are people who support this aspect, but not that. There are people protesting this in potential partner countries all round the world--we're not the only ones raising objections.
It's a long, long process and we'll be at it for awhile, yet. This is not imminent, not by a long shot; it's not a done deal, there are many US legislators who object to it--but you'd never know that by reading this OP. It's not all cut and dried, otherwise Hero Wyden wouldn't become Villain Wyden in the wink of a comic-book eye. Harry Reid, the majority leader some just love to hate at every opportunity, should be canonized a saint for telling Baucus to go fuck himself, that his bill ain't making it to the floor. Same deal with Nancy Pelosi, who has weighed in against fast track--but you'd never know it if you relied on DU for your news.
If we discuss these issues in such stark "friend/enemy" terms, though, all we get is crap. It's not "discussion"--it's cheerleading. Bush-ish "With 'em or agin' 'em" lines being drawn. Making divisive "waaah, people who don't set their hair on fire must secretly SUPPORT this" comments isn't helpful either. It's as dumb as calling anyone with a nuanced view (like Wyden) an "enemy" because he supports sneaker sweatshops staffed by children overseas with a headquarters in his home state--or a "friend" because he signed an essentially symbolic "sop to the sign wavers" letter.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)has indicate the slightest goodness from this for the 99%. The "wait and see" attitude is naive at best. The middle class and working class are being decimated. Wages are down still high unemployment, the wealth gap is widening every day with no end in sight. Sooner or later we need to take the "hair on fire" attitude. I see very few in Congress that I believe are looking out for the 99%. The corporatists want to gut all regulations on corporations and it looks like that's what the TPP is designed to do.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)This particular policy is of a lower priority for you than loyalty to the party's leadership.
I mean, I can say I "care" about preserving the ecological balance of the Pyrenees-- and I suppose I do, in an abstract sort of way-- but it's not a priority for me. So I don't really care.
The position you described isn't the adult position, or the pragmatic one, or the rational one. It's simply a statement that you don't care about it enough to let it color your perception of politicians you like. It isn't really even a position at all.
randome
(34,845 posts)Maybe he's someone's enemy on this one issue but that's a far cry from saying he's the enemy of the 99%.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)liberal. What is the problem you are seeing? Manny's positions are consistently liberal. Are you saying that it is NOT liberal to oppose secret trade agreements where foreign corporations get to write legislation that even Congress has no access to? I'm not getting your comment.
You know that we DO KNOW some of what is in this secret trade agreement thanks to Wikileaks don't you? You know it will decimate some of our hard fought for Environmental Laws in order for foreign corps to be able to profit while harming OUR ENVIRONMENT.
You know that the TPP will destroy Social Programs especially in countries where they have GOOD SOCIAL programs so that they can all be PRIVATIZED for PROFIT?
So why is Manny's position hard for any liberal to understand?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)consistently Liberal.
Or so it seems.
Third Way blather, all of it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to take it away from real liberals and pose as liberals in polls etc.
But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and not expect people to notice that something is wrong about the marketing of the purse.
An old saying someone taught me once which just popped into my head right now for some reason. 
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) You say good words.Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I don't think it's at all tiring, assuming that at least one of his personalities considers me a friend.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)K&R
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
IkeRepublican This message was self-deleted by its author.
IkeRepublican
(406 posts)They've been spoonfed everything - their music, movies and everything else. They're timid, malleable and the reason they big mouth so much is because deep down they're nothing but a bunch of airheads ball-less pansies - conditioned by their moral-weakling parents, media and everything in between.
That is why I believe they echo the rich man's rhetoric. They actually believe if they echo it, somehow - some way - they will eventually be able to sit at the table of their company's chairmen and executives. The truth is, they never will. Because nobody likes a kiss ass...and if anybody can detect a kiss ass better than most, it's the rich man.
The rich man isn't going to seek out somebody blowing him. He can get that on tap any time he feels like. He's going to seek out the guy who doesn't give a shit except about his family and putting in an honest day's work.
And I can't help but think how some of the rich men look at these TPP dullards and think, "Jesus, what a bunch of maroons. Well, might as well make some money off of them. If they weren't so stupid, they'd be no use to us anyhow."
antigop
(12,778 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)a bunch of airheads ball-less pansies - conditioned by their moral-weakling parents.... ah, do you mind if I borrow this one?
I think that, when it comes to the TPP, most of us have some notion that "well, this is probably a bad idea that favors the rich and screws the poor/average/everybody else..." the problem is with the lack of transparency. If Obama, or any of the powers that be - if they really want to push this forward, they need to provide the information to the general public about what it is, what it does, highlight anything positive the average person might get out of it. Come on television and explain it to us in simple language, that's not a difficult concept, somehow, I doubt it really requires chapters and chapters of legal jargon and bullspit to explain.
The secrecy of this thing, is, for me, enough to be very wary of it. The details that we have right now though, are... sketchy, at best.
IkeRepublican
(406 posts)Obama and his "team"...sick of that fucking word - "team"...like it's god damn little league. Mission statement buzz words from the human resources industry. Wouldn't trust that industry with a pint of piss.
If Obama and his "team" would get the facts out and smash Republican testicles with a sledgehammer, their agendas would probably get much better support.
I see Obama's bunch as throwing in the towel very early on due to the constant Republican Conservative Media Machine ambushes. You know, the attitude of, "They're gonna bitch no matter what and they got a new fabricated scandal every week, so let's not bother."
Last Democrat to not put up with that shit was LBJ. He'd get right in their faces. Since then, it's been this whistling past the graveyard shit. And I know lots of folks revere Jimmy Carter - I like him a lot too - but that's when the whistling began, replaced by a bunch of esoteric liberal jibber-jabber that fully enables the Republicans to piss all over Democrats with full stream and force.
We all know where the Republican weak spots are. Trouble is, our leaders won't exploit those spots and run them over with a bulldozer like the Republicans deserve.
What's the Republicans going to do? Play the "Angry black Obama" card? Oh crap, scary-scary! They've been doing it since Rush Limpballs' "I hope he fails!" days after the first term inauguration.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)(or you may remember it), Carter was a right-wing Democrat.
Still a good human being, but that's what passed as the right wing of the party back then!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I'll bet most cars would average 40 mpg.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I voted for Carter twice. And the choice was clear.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Period.
I will do everything in my power to see to it they are tossed out of office or never get in. Regardless of what color jersey they are wearing.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)...and I include any Clinton.
navarth
(5,927 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) MADem
(135,425 posts)He supports the "smart track" of the TPP.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)This is a litmus test worth threatening any supposed "big tent" team player dynamic. I don't care what the other issues are. Well, I care in the academic and philosophical sense; but what's the point if we're all serfs?
historylovr
(1,557 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that sounds just as nasty as the TPP. A lot of STEALTH FASCISM underfoot in the world now!
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180572/grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Possibly even more malignant than the TPP, which is saying a lot.
We are under assault from within. There is no other way to put it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 13, 2014, 02:42 AM - Edit history (1)
The greatest threat the the nation has ever faced.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...you do get it. You can't be for TPP and be for the 99% at the same time.
- Only the foolish think otherwise.
K&R
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The problem is that US manufacturing is on the decline (and has been for decades), we dominate the world through the Military Industrial Complex and markets, particularly finance, real estate, insurance, rental, and leasing property. As well as the service industry.
There's a reason that the US wants stringent intellectual property requirements in there. And there's a reason they're tying up environmental regulations in there. It forces those countries to buy our intellectual property relating to clean energy, as we're on a roadmap to be clean by around 2050.
Now, addressing the 99% issue, well, TPP certainly helps only the rich, and it does shit for the environment, because it will enable us to further outsource our pollution. But that's really a symptom of our society as it stands. Rather than paying our workers a living wage, we pay them beneath what it is to live, because our products come from a place where those workers have even worse living standards and insane work hours. So us greedy people, we sit back, fat and happy, exploiting the world with the largest most insanely overpowered military, largest GDP by far, and we elect politicians who create things like the TPP so that we can retain our hegemony.
Is that good? No. Do I support the TPP? No. I'm just explaining why it exists.
If you want to stop it bring manufacturing back home and raise the minimum wage to one that supports a society that isn't importing its goods from effective slaves in the rest of the world. Taking a couple of decongestants won't clear up a lung infection, you need some serious anti-bacterials. TPP is a distraction, it's the symptom as opposed to the cause.
And of course, that's exactly what the people in power want it to be. A distraction. You'd rather write post after post about how horrible it is without discussing why it's being sought.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not just about pollution, though--it's a counterweight to other interests around the globe.
I have my doubts as to whether it will even pass. From what little we know, the US isn't on the same page as many of the regional actors, and some of the people at the table also have populations that aren't enamoured of the agreement (NZ, e.g.).
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Here's where I explain more about it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=735212
To me the important effect it will have is that it won't mitigate pollution but it will pretend to do so. This is far more than the manufacturing jobs that will inevitably be lost in exchange for service industry jobs and bankers lining their pockets.
That the US "isn't on the same page" is one reason why the damn thing is secret, some are going to get a better deal than others, it won't even be announced until they have the votes for it, that's how damned cynical it is. It could be "negotiated" for years. Hell, 2020 or further. But the details will eventually be worked out. Hopefully we can have a SOPA-like protest and shut down the internet to stop it, but I think we won't.
MADem
(135,425 posts)were somewhat truncated, and there are participants in this conversation who are being led to believe that this is a done deal that will happen tomorrow...and that is not the case. Many House Dems have already gone on record as not playing ball (and a few Republicans too) and Harry Reid told Baucus to pound sand on his introduction of the bill.
Politicians aren't stupid. They aren't liking what they're hearing from their constituencies. IMO, this isn't the best time to be handing out favors to Big Pharma, but that's just me.
It's not just the US that aren't enamoured. Canada, Peru, Chile, Japan--they're all crying about one thing or another, and enthusiasm is waning.
I agree that it could be negotiated for years, and I also believe that some participants will join (like S. Korea, expressing "interest"
and leave (Chile is looking waffly) the conclave, depending on their leadership and attitude.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Is your only beef that my posts on this subject are short on analysis and long on fingers-in-eyeballs?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)My beef is that we're attacking the symptom as opposed to the cause.
And when Democrats do talk about attacking the cause (in one case it's the corporate tax rate which has way too many loopholes) it's sort of ignored or deflected. Democrats say "we need to close the loopholes and lower the rate," everyone focuses on "lowering the rate." Why? The high end is higher than Germany. So why not adjust it down to Germany's rate, and then close the loopholes? It's a win win.
Now you'd call be a pragmatist for saying that, I think it's just common darn sense.
Additionally, give tax incentives to companies which do keep their manufacturing here and who do hire American employees.
Of course, that wouldn't stop something like TPP from being created, but it could probably be made public at that point, because it wouldn't have the kind of economic subterfuge that is necessary to maintain our import economy while at the same time marginalizing our biggest global threats (China and Russia). Slave manufactured goods and oil are unsustainable, and the US knows it.
Automation is going to take over slave labor and renewables are going to take over oil. The question is whether we get off the import economy before it happens or if we strangle the rest of the world while we do it. It appears that we are doing the latter. And the latter will take a lot longer because it means letting the almighty "markets" bring forth renewable energy and automation as opposed to a grand bargain which could bring it about decades sooner.
Lest I ramble on further about how a living wage is going to be absolutely necessary in this new world.
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)but the loss of manufacturing has always been brought about by trade agreements, hasn't it?
isn't that kind of the "chicken/egg" debate?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)That's capitalism for you. You either lose labor to sweatshops or robots (take that term very generally please). But "productive forces" are one way.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The ONLY reason for these "free trade" agreements is to grease the wheels for the worst aspects of economic behavior, It is a symptom of a larger loss of ethics and morality.
But it is greasing the wheels, and fighting back against the values that drives these agreements go hand-in-hand.
leftstreet
(36,098 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)capitalist pig
A term for a rich business tycoon who only cares about making more money. He doesn't care if he puts smaller stores out of business, doesn't care about the poor or middle class, and doesn't care very much about the customer. His business will usually sell overpriced products made of cheap plastic, and the customer support will usually be outsourced if there's any customer support in the first place. Similar to the phrase "miser", or "cheapskate", but more applicable to people who not only horde money, but keep expanding their businesses even when they have more than enough money.
That capitalist pig took all the business. Soon we'll have to sell our shop and move away.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=capitalist%20pig
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a Democrat or a friend of the people. This WILL be a litmus test for those asking for the votes of the people. Enough holding of noses and voting for the lesser evil. Let them know NOW they CANNOT count on votes if they support this legislation written, not by our Congress, but by Global Corporations. It is unconscionable.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts).....
The big talk about TPP isn’t that silly. But my starting point for things like this is that most conventional barriers to trade — tariffs, import quotas, and so on — are already quite low, so that it’s hard to get big effects out of lowering them still further.
....
OK, I don’t want to be too dismissive. But so far, I haven’t seen anything to justify the hype, positive or negative.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2013/12/12/tpp/
If the TPP really was an "abomination", shouldn't a left-leaning Nobel Prize-winning economist have been able to figure that out by now?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about the environment. I can't say whether I know something he doesn't know or not since I don't know if he missed those leaks. Nor do I know if he knows, or cares, that our Representatives have been access to the information surrounding this secret deal. I don't know Krugman personally, perhaps you do?
And btw, no matter how much I generally admire someone, politically or otherwise, that doesn't deter me from disagreeing with them when they are clearly wrong.
If Krugman has read the leaks then he could not be more wrong. If he hasn't, that would explain his statement that he 'hasn't seen to justify the hype, positive or negative'.
Someone should send him a link just to be sure.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)saying that he had received a great deal of concerned feedback about them and acknowledging that he should not have spoken so soon without knowing more about the agreement. The last public statement I saw, he indicated that he planned to read more about it.
He was absolutely wrong to make those comments, and if he ends up standing by them after reading more, he will still be wrong.
Either way, the post above yours is an empty appeal to authority, which is a lousy way to make an argument.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)assumed 'admired liberal' voice of authority, it will influence those of us who base our positions on information and mostly principle. The implication seems to be that if (fill in the blank) is FOR something, and we are AGAINST it, then surely we will rethink our position and fall in line with this person. It's an amazing assumption, perhaps some projection involved? For me, if someone I admire consistently takes wrong positions on important issues, I WILL rethink my position, but not on the issue, but on my own judgement of this individual.
I agree with you as I said already, if Krugman reads the little we do know thanks to those leaks, and still stands by those comments, he is not just wrong, but would be revealing something about himself that would lose him a lot of respect.
The very fact that it is 'secret' should concern him, that Congress can't get information they are ENTITLED to should concern him.
Glad at least he admits he should have 'waited' before making those comments.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)After a point the people will not stand for this free trade bullshit.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This is not *just* an assault on jobs and wages. Handing corporations the power to overrule the democratic will of the people on issues as critical as the protection of their workers is the trading of democracy itself for fascism. It is an assault on the ability of millions to protect themselves/ourselves from predatory corporations that have already devastated and impoverished entire nations and the lives of millions for profit. It is an assault on democratic principles, on humanity, and on human decency.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I don't care. She's not my enemy. Her ethics and mine are different in a lot of places. I don't share her conventional outlook on business and economics and I'm sure she doesn't share my radical desire to abolish private ownership of land. But I like her. And she's a Democrat. She's not my enemy.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'm simply pointing out what I think is the obvious truth: that certain political positions are incompatible with working Americans getting a fair deal, and with our children having a decent future.
Hillary and other politicians get to choose which side their on with regard to those issues.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)
Hillary Clinton's voting record is has a 100% rating by NARAL for her positions on women's rights, a 96% rating by the NAACP for her positions on minority rights and affirmative action. The US Chamber of Commerce rates her voting record at 35% -- which means that she regularly votes against the interests big business. She has an 89% rating from the League of Conservation Voters for her votes in favor of environmental protection. She fought for health care reform and was a strong advocate for a public (not private) option.
She's not my enemy. We have areas of disagreement but she's not my enemy.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Geez.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)"Classy" Clinton would be helping the party find a candidate that suits the party, the middle class and below.
Hillary doesn't do a damned thing for me and when she does come out in support of some cause like womens' rights or others, it always seems self serving.
I'd like for her to just go the fuck away.
If she can't help us find a candidate, she could at least disappear.
But, clearly, like Bill, she's addicted to herself and can't resist attention.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
TBF
(32,004 posts)but at this point the most some of us on the left can do is vote for the least damaging person and keep agitating outside of voting (which is most of our time - voting is a small thing in my view - especially in this country at this point in time).
And anyone, either side of the aisle, who votes for TPP is going to be held accountable at some point. That's just reality. At some point the masses of people who are being put out of work in this country are going to figure out how to organize and fight back - and when that time comes I wouldn't want to be the person who pushed through NAFTA and or TPP.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)be considered a friend of the 99%?
By working to ensure that the Trade Agreement includes worker (workplace and wage) protections ... just as this administration has been doing.
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Wouldn't it make sense to correct that before moving on to new experiments like the TPP, which the President has plenty of time for?
PosterChild
(1,307 posts)... it's simple: A trade agreement has to be judged in total, based on its pluses and minuses, not on a "parade of horribles" that, in truth, does not even exist since the agreement is still in negotiation.
All trade agreements will contain "something for everyone" where each something will potentially be something good for one or a few parties to the agreement and, at the same time, be indifferent or detrimental to the others. A lot of possibilities have to be talked about and balanced one against the other until some sort of net "win-win" solution can be arrived at. If there is a lot of pissing and moaning and demagogic scare tactics being employed along the way, the entire processes will get shut down and we won't ever have the chance to examine a balanced solution that might be more acceptable than the status-quo.
Warren certainly knows this. After all, she's been a tenured law-school professor specializing in bankruptcy law. And I'm sure that, given the opportunity to advance the interests and general welfare of our nation through a negotiated trade agreement, she would proceed in just the same manner.
marmar
(77,053 posts)...... Defending the indefensible is hard work.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)be able to get the 99% to stop buying imports.
The fact is that there has been no US Democratic president for over 100 years who did not support free trade. The agreements are an attempt to make that trade fairer.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)helped America's 99% the most?
Bonus question: how's the Bush/Obama Korean "free" trade agreement working out?
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)presidents have stood, and wondering why people who rabidly oppose their unanimous stands on trade would be a Democrat.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)With less transparency than negotiations for previous agreements?
I only recall Candidate Obama saying that he's renegotiate NAFTA to make it not suck.
How about Bill Clinton? What did he say about "free" trade agreements when he was running?
My sense is that both these candidates ran as somewhat left of center, than sprinted hard right once elected. It's unfair to blame the people who elected them for not appreciating their new-found extreme rightist positions.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)TPP is not about NAFTA or GATT or Breton Woods except that they all attempt to increase trade. They were all supported by Democrats.
Just fyi, this is an excerpt from the Democratic platform in 2012, the one that President Obama ran and won on.
"Opened Markets All Over the World for American Products."" President Obama and the Democratic Party know that America has the best workers and businesses in the world. If the playing field is level, Americans will be able to compete against every other country on Earth. Over the last four years, we have made historic progress toward the goal of doubling our exports by 2015. We have taken steps to open new markets to American products, while ensuring that other countries play by the same rules. President Obama signed into law new trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that will support tens of thousands of private-sector jobs, but not before he strengthened these agreements on behalf of American workers and businesses."
It goes on to talk about the TPP.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)What about 2008, before he sealed the nomination?
The Korean agreement has gone as poorly as all of the other "free" trade agreement - exports have dropped, imports are up, and jobs are lost, the exact opposite of what Obama promised - this is PRECISELY why my question is relevent, not silly as you state. These agreements always end up the same way.
The other two Bush/Obama agreements are tiny in comparison, I don't know how those are going.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)you should have checked out the Democratic party platform in 2008. Obama got re-elected by a majority of all voters.
It's interesting that so many immigrants have come here for jobs from Mexico if NAFTA actually moved US jobs to Mexico.
NealK
(1,851 posts)But they sure are corporate puppets.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Is that there's this big debate here, about whether the TPP is any good, about whether anyone who supports it, fights for it, can be considered a friend of the 99%... now, that seems like a reasonable question, given that... well, it appears to have some bad stuff in it. What I have yet to see though, from either side of this debate, is, perhaps, what we are all lacking... knowledge of - and understanding of what it actually is and does on a broader scale. So right now, the entire debate is based on vague understanding, limited knowledge, perspective coming from those of us who (correct me if I'm wrong) really haven't got much of a clue about the overall status or purpose of this thing. We can imagine, guess, estimate, whatever... but until it's actually broken down for us... it's like a bunch of third graders arguing about nuclear physics. But, you know, I like these debates, so I'll play.
I don't like the secrecy, not one bit. What needs to happen here, I think, is for someone - anyone, I don't care who, to come clean and tell us what the hell the TPP IS. What proposals have been made, what effects they are likely to have. We need to discuss the various elements of it, examine it, debate it... and understand it, at least somewhat, before the decision should be made of whether or not to pass it through. In this regard... no, I do not think President Obama, or anyone pushing for this is my friend. If they would be my friend, they would explain to me what the hell this is, before expecting me to live with it.
To be fair, I believe Obama has accomplished a great deal during his Presidency, considering what he has had to work with. In many regards I believe he is indeed my friend, that he did the best he could to offer me and every other American some kind of better option for health insurance. Nope, none of it's perfect, but it's better than what I had before.
This stuff though... this makes me nervous, suspicious. It makes me wonder what the hell is really going on, who the real players are, whether the gist of this thing will ever see the light of day.
As things stand now, I could never support the TPP. I can't really say though, that it's despicable and I absolutely hate it all either. Simply put, I don't know what it actually is.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)This is beyond outrageous.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)... at face value
