If Sanders and Warren were telling the truth, they'd argue FOR, not against, the TPA.

[ucrdem]

Here's why: Sanders and Warren have claimed for months that TPP (the trade bill) is being negotiated in secret and is a scary bad thing, and that TPA (fast track authority) should be defeated. Warren for example writes in her latest e-mail appeal:

Let's send a loud message to our trade officials: No vote on a fast-track for trade agreements until the American people can see what’s in this TPP deal – ISDS and everything else. http://elizabethwarren.com/blog

But they both know that without TPA, there won't be any trade bill, because the parties won't sign off without it. But if TPA does pass, Warren and Sanders get exactly what they claim to want -- public access to the complete, final TPP. From the Wyden TPA bill summary:

New and expanded provisions . . . Require USTR to publish trade agreements 60 days before signing them, and to publish detailed summaries of U.S. proposals throughout.

http://www.finance.senate.gov/download/?id=FEC41212-F7AF-4A6D-BF83-978401999DAF

So if they were honest, Warren and Sanders would join President Obama in calling for swift passage of the TPA in order to complete the negotiating process and get the bill before the public as soon as possible. But they aren't. I wonder why?

[Larkspur]

1. Reduced to trolling for Obama's bad decisiont to support Wall Streets and Multi-national

corporation give away, aka TPP and TPA.

Sanders and Warren are right to call Obama's bluff. Mr. President, release the TPP doc and all further modifications on it BEFORE the vote on TPA so the public can review it and determine who is right and wrong.

[ucrdem]

3. He can't release it because it doesn't yet exist.

And it won't exist until he gets TPA. Do you follow that much at least?

[delrem]

7. You say the TPP doesn't exist until the President gets fast track authority?

cough.
this isn't lala land.

It exists.

[ucrdem]

9. The negotiating docs exist, but there's no final draft.

The signatories won't sign off without an assurance that the finished doc won't be altered by US Congress or other parties.

[delrem]

11. Well duh, of course it isn't signed into law yet!

You insist that it be signed into law before we've even seen it?

[ucrdem]

14. Sgning it into law happens after the signatories sign off on a final draft.

The signatories signing off on a draft is when the approval process begins, and that's when the public gets to see it. Before that there's no final document to be shown.

[delrem]

21. I see, the signatories sign off on the deal, THEN some "approval process begins".

LORD HAVE MERCY
LORD HAVE MERCY
LORD HAVE MAXIMAL MERCY

[Hiraeth]

159. !

[BrotherIvan]

168. LOL!

[cali]

50. there have been over 20 negotiating rounds

Almost all issues are settled. Such things as rice re Japan and dairy issues with Canada remain as stumbling blocks, but both the USTR and the WH have commented that negotiations are near to finalized.

[daleanime]

58. They're happy with the current 'unfinished' version.....

or they wouldn't be riding it so hard, but just be they're happy with it doesn't mean we can see it. We're just the people who will have to live with it.

[Chan790]

103. What the signatories want is a dealbreaker.

Congress should be able to alter the deal or else the US should withdraw from the negotiations.

No assurances should be given of things we shouldn't be agreeing to in the first place.

[Vincardog]

203. It is amazing that any international agreements ever got passed before they could be SECRET.

Your ruse that "there is nothing to disclose" beggars reality.

IF they won't agree to the plan without it being a secret, you know it is a BAD plan.

[Recursion]

231. Umm... when in history have they not been secret during negotiations?

Seriously, I'm curious if people actually believe that.

[Vincardog]

235. We are no longer "during negotiations" the president is asking authority for it to be voted on up or

down now with only 70 seconds of inquiry per senator.

[Recursion]

242. Yes, we are, though the ministers say they're nearly done

The USTR has put a lot of stuff about the negotiations online.

[Exilednight]

81. It's close enough to finished to show is what's in it. IF Onama wanted

To make a case, he could present the doc and say, "these are the parts we are not happy with, and trying to negotiate. These parts I am happy with and set in stone." Then he can let the public decide.

[cui bono]

160. No one follows pretzel logic thinking like that.

That ridiculous meme is barely worth responding to.

Why does Obama need TPA if there's nothing that exists that he needs it for?

[BrotherIvan]

169. It's making my head hurt!

If one has to tie oneself up into those kind of knots to keep on cheering, that's a lot of work for very little benefit. DAYUM.

[cui bono]

172. I'm ready to take a hide and call this OP what it is...

But I usually end up going back and edit the post.

edited...

[BrotherIvan]

178. I think people see it exactly for what it is

And all the screaming in the world won't work. It worked during Obama's first few years, but the mask is off now that he's fighting for the TPP and all the pretzel logic in the world won't fix it. It won't work with their candidate now either. Just let Hillary be Hillary.

[cui bono]

181. That's why the OP had to rec his own thread to get it up to 5 recs.

I had to see who would rec this steaming pile.

[BrotherIvan]

188. ooh ouch

[Jackpine Radical]

201. Don't feed it energy.

[Buzz Clik]

69. Trolling? Making a solid point is NOT trolling.

[cui bono]

161. Oh, the OP made a solid, but it was not a solid point.

[Buzz Clik]

171. potty humor

[cui bono]

175. Better than potty posts

[Buzz Clik]

184. No shit.

[cui bono]

185. potty mouth

[ibegurpard]

2. Because people are tired of seeing their real-world jobs

evaporating because of slavish devotion to textbook economic theories and the idea that international trade tribunals can actually overrule our own laws and regulations.
That's why.

[JonLP24]

5. I've been educated on textbook economic theories

I'm strongly opposed to TPPA, no doubt it will be good for US-Japan corporations but not so much for US labor.

[laundry_queen]

251. Same and I agree. nt

[pampango]

67. "... the idea that international trade tribunals can actually overrule our own laws and regulations.

How do you enforce labor and environmental standards in countries that have low standards now? Rely on their own national government to enforce standards that they are not enforcing now?

FDR did not think that would work. He proposed and Truman negotiated and signed the International Trade Organization that would have regulated trade disputes through "consultation and conciliation" and would have linked trade to labor standards, business regulation and a commitment to full employment.

The use of "conciliation" or arbitration rather than countries acting unilaterally was a key part of the trade policy of FDR and Truman. Of course, the republican congress that Truman had to deal with after signing the ITO rejected it, viewing the conciliation and arbitration provision as empowering "international trade tribunals", which had an ominous ring kind of like the modern charge of "death panels", which could have promoted labor standards, business regulation and a goal of full employment - things that made business leaders very nervous.

[Buzz Clik]

70. It is what liberals do best: fear the unknown.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. Which is why they want things to become known.

When the door might open up to either a nutcase with a machete or a person with a birthday cake, wouldn't you rather have a peephole so you know whether or not to open the door?

[Buzz Clik]

89. Your metaphor is wrong.

There are two doors to open: One that allows you to fully examine the stranger before letting him in, and the second door to let him in or keep him out.

As usual, our fears overcome our desire for being accurately informed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

101. Your metaphor is fine by me too.

Door 1 being rejecting the TPA so we can fully examine him before deciding to let him in or not, and door 2 being to accept the TPA so all we can do after is decide to let him in or keep him out. With the added bonus that once we choose door #2, Republicans can decide to let him in without any Dems onboard except the President.

[Buzz Clik]

116. The only way to examine the TPP is to accept fast-tracking the agreement. No other options.

Reject fast-tracking, and we reject TPP. Done and done.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

129. Then we must reject fast tracking. We don't buy pigs in pokes.

Let the cat out of the bag, and see if the people really want to buy a cat, rather than a pig. Gotta say no to buying an unopened bag with a claim that there's actually a pig in there.

The people who set up your 'options' are the ones selling cats in bags as pigs.

[Buzz Clik]

130. "We don't buy pigs in pokes." Pure fallacy.

Accept fast-tracking, and the agreement will immediately be made publicly. No obscurity in that fact.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

134. Accept fast-tracking, and we can't demand we get a bag with a pig in it.

We have to let Republicans vote to buy a cat at that point.

[Buzz Clik]

138. Ok, but it will take the same type of vote to reject fast tracking.

The only way to know what's inside is to accept fast tracking.

If the TPP contains, as has been argued on this thread, provisions for the US to give up its sovereignty and legalize slavery abroad, then I think we can assume it will be soundly defeated with bipartisan disapproval.

[TheKentuckian]

140. If the agreement is bad for American workers the Republicans will save us is your argument?

What is the basis of this strange belief utterly out of context with their day to day agenda of screwing workers?

[freshwest]

228. And then it can still be voted down! Fast track doesn't equal approval. They can stop it.

Fast track means and up or down vote. Those who oppose the treaty can filibuster or galvanize public support against it. The Senate has already published a draft, and I've got the article with the link in my Journal. But I don't think that is what the firestorm is really about, period, so I won't argue this.

Those who want one intrepretation will ignore all of that. Either that, or they are too far gone in CT to grasp the process by which laws and treaties are made.

I'm not a teacher, it's simply not my personality type. It's why I respect teachers. I'd never be able to figure out all those kids. And it never paid enough. What has been done to the beleaguered education field of public schooling is a crime, abetted by the Koches, CTers, media and churches. I find the same forces at work online.

We cannot magically undo all trade deals from the beginning of time and it appears some are putting all their angst on this one item. Trade deals didn't automatically take manufacturing away, IMO.

Generational changes, children taking over family businesses big and small, get rich quick and live kings, is part of the problem. And the national debt for wars made agreements to be paid in kind. People that loan us money for wars don't do it for love.

I saw most of this evolving from the Vietnam war debt, with more since Iraq. The auto industry was destroyed not by itself, but in order to make a payment in kind to those who funded American war debt. Consider where American steel and auto jobs disappeared to. I don't fault the creditors. I fault the gullible, overreactive public, who took their cues about what was good and evil from media.

Same thing with China and all the malarkey since then. China gave the USA a LOT of money. That came from the hard work and the resources of their country. Bush and PNAC were determined to go to war, and the very prudent heads of the Chinese government saw an opportunity. Most people don't want our dollars. They want real estate, resources and capabilities to build their won nation.

A nation that gives up its bases of manufacturing and knowledge, it loses its civilization and create and all that it provides. Then they lose their minds, spending money on trinkets, navel gazing, snarling and biting each other, and then their sovereignty. This isn't just about THIS trade deal.

The problem is bigger. And it's us.

JMHO.

[TheKentuckian]

241. Bullshit, can you count to 51 or 216? How are we supposed to stop it?

I assume "they" is the TeaPubliKlans and if we are supposed to count on them to hold off corporate dominance, protect the environment, or to protect American workers then I've got beachfront property in Kansas you may well be interested in.

Fillabuster? What do you think an up or down vote is? They need a bare majority so there is no Fillabuster.

[cui bono]

183. Good. Reject both.

If the only way to get the TPP is by fast tracking it it is clearly not worth the computer it is stored on.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. Well, this board is liberal. If you don't like liberals, consider other destinations.

We don't apologize here for being liberal. Questions?

[Buzz Clik]

99. Poor baby. Doesn't like being challenged. So here's my question:

Why don't you leave?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

105. Because I'm a liberal and I've been here since 2001, watching pinheads come and go.

Once again, this is a liberal discussion board. We won't be catering to your stated anti-liberal notions. That's not how this works.

[Buzz Clik]

114. Sorry, but you don't get to decide who fits on this board and who doesn't.

Threre is a panel that decides such things. I'm sure they'd be interested in your request to have me banned.


And, just in case I survive your purge, I have no desire to be catered to; and you can be damned certain that I will be tiptoeing around your extreme sensitivities.

[Bobbie Jo]

162. Well this LIBERAL

and yes, I'm just as much a liberal than anyone else here, says you stay put as long as you see fit.

The "holier than thou" patrol are in rare form today.

What an arrogant post.

[Buzz Clik]

173. There are those who are trying to narrow the spectrum of "liberal"

Thanks for your post.

[cui bono]

177. And others who are trying to widen it to include centrists.

No liberal would support Obama 100% as some on here who claim to be liberals. Liberals don't like moderate Republican policies, which is exactly how Obama himself describes his policies.

[neverforget]

186. They're definition of liberal is anything Obama does

so there's that

[Buzz Clik]

187. "Centrists" "Third Way" Neo-Liberals"

Some many ways to alienate everyone who doesn't march in time.

[LondonReign2]

189. If the shoe fits

If you're going to espouse moderate Republican economic policies why not own it? Embrace the organizations -- Third Way, No Labels, etc.-- that think that way. Why be embarrassed?

[cui bono]

192. Why do you think that is done to alienate? It isn't. It is simply a political description of

where people stand. Centrist, Third Way (what used to be the DLC) and Neo-liberal are all simply political descriptions, not insults. I don't understand why people in these categories think they are0 insults. If that's where one stands they should be proud of it. I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it. I stand for liberal causes and principles and am not afraid to say it.

[Buzz Clik]

193. It doesn't faze me in the slightest; however, those terms are used as insults:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6651771

[cui bono]

195. Yes, people try to use them as insults, just as people try to use liberal as an insult.

But they are really just political descriptions.

I don't see how the post you linked to is using it as an insult rather than a description. The fact is both parties have moved right quite a bit on the political spectrum so that now the centrist position is pretty much moderate Republican. Obama himself is a self described moderate Republican. That's just what it is. The Republican Party is now extreme right wing and the Dem Party is for the most part centrist, the party leadership certainly is. It used to be left/liberal, fighting for unions, SS, the environment, etc... now, not so much.

I have seen Turd Way used and emoprog/firebagger used, both of which I feel is using a label as an insult, but then those are modified labels so it's pretty clear what the intent is.

[BainsBane]

174. Yeah, I'm not a supporter of TPP

but the idea that anyone who falls outside the group think should leave is indeed arrogant.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

205. Indeed. And who said such a dastardly thing?

[BainsBane]

209. Since you asked

You declared DU was a site for liberals and others should look elsewhere. It's actually a site for Democrats, most but not all of whom are liberals. Some are to the right of liberals and some to the left of liberals. The commonality is, at least in theory, voting Democratic. Though we have some self-described liberals who insist they will not vote for a Democrat in the general presidential election if they don't get their favored candidate in the primary.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

216. "consider other destinations". It's good advice for those who don't care for liberals.

The other poster displayed pretty clearly that he doesn't care much for liberals. I suggested he consider other destinations. Since then, he's converted this suggestion to me trying to get him kicked off of DU. I don't have the inclination to play second grade games with someone who has to make stuff up just to put himself in a more sympathetic light. You'll note, of course, that I never said DU was exclusively for liberals. I said, and I'll repeat, that DU is liberal-friendly, and that we don't apologize for that here.

[cui bono]

176. You are not a liberal.

If you were you wouldn't constantly defend a self described moderate Republican's policies.

You don't get to change what liberal means. It stands for something real.

[Bobbie Jo]

197. Another arrogant post

Who the hell do you think YOU are to tell me jack shit.

Please.

Sell your self-righteous nonsense elsewhere.

Utter arrogance.

[cui bono]

198. So what stances do you take that are liberal? From what I've seen you agree with Obama on everything

which would put you at moderate Republican according to him. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I only see you post in defense of him, I've never seen you criticize him. Liberals don't feel that way.

I'm not being arrogant, I'm attempting to be accurate. If you think I'm wrong, then show me. I just don't like it when liberal is used incorrectly because it really does mean something and I believe you are misusing it when you use it to describe yourself. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry that I have upset you with my post.

[Bobbie Jo]

199. You don't know me.

I've been a liberal for more than 30 years.

That means that I don't have to make a case to anyone, especially some annonymous, holier than thou person on the damn internet.

I have absolutely no reason to "show" you anything.

Understood?

[cui bono]

200. Why so combative? I'm not holier than thou, unless you yourself believe I am. I certainly do not.

I am simply about being honest and factual. I've not seen any posts from you on here that are of a liberal mindset. I've only seen you defend Obama (a self described moderate Republican) on everything and post snide remarks to/about those who criticize him.

If you want to set the record straight, if it's that important for you to be seen as a liberal, then go for it. Otherwise I will believe what I've seen posted by you - which of course isn't everything you've ever posted - and will believe you to be a centrist. If you consider that an insult then you can take a look at what and who you defend/criticize on here and why and change if you want to be a liberal.

But you don't get to post like a centrist (from what I've seen) and then claim you are a liberal. Political descriptions actually mean something and should be respected. Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't make them a liberal, especially now, when the Dem Party and its leadership is center, taking up some of the space the GOP used to take before they moved to the extreme right wing end of the spectrum.

[Bobbie Jo]

208. Enough

You're full of false assumptions and twisted narratives. You can take that passive aggressive, centrist bullshit and sell it elsewhere.

Done here.

[cui bono]

213. Fine. I'll keep my assessment of you as is then, based on the posts I've read by you.

Which is the way one 'knows' an anonymous person on the internet.

But if I'm "full of false assumptions and twisted narratives" as you claim, then point out how. Show me that I'm wrong.

I'm listening.

[Bobbie Jo]

214. Who cares?

Of course you know what you can do with it too.

The arrogance of assuming it matters...

Gag me.

[cui bono]

215. You seemed to care enough to declare yourself a LIBERAL. Why do you want that so badly?

[Bobbie Jo]

218. Same as I told your partner...

Take a hike.

I'll post what I damn well please without explanation to you or anyone else.

Got it?

[cui bono]

221. How do you know my partner? How do you know whether or not I even have a partner?

I didn't say you couldn't post what you "damn well please". Where did I say that?

I'm just saying you don't get to redefine 'liberal' just because for some reason you want to be seen as one when everything I've seen you post is usually in defense of someone with self-described moderate Republican policies or is of the behavior - as your behavior is in this subthread - of people who are usually on the extreme opposite end of the political spectrum.

But as I said, I'm here, I'm listening, if you care to show how I'm "full of false assumptions and twisted narratives" in this subthread.

[Bobbie Jo]

224. Yeah, here's the thing...

People who come across as arrogant, obnoxious, and holier than thou turn my stomach. Seriously. I find people like this absolutely toxic.

I didn't even bother reading the above post, as I'm sure it was the same repackaged load of condescension as I've seen from you over time.

Now go pat yourself on the back and be on your way. That you continue to drag this out knowing that I'm not reading it only tells me that you're playing to an audience at this point. So do your thing, I'm done here.

I've had enough toxic for this day.

eta: btw....didn't read your response either. I'm sure your audience appreciates your "efforts."

Add passive aggressive here.

Gag me...

[cui bono]

225. Oh the irony...

Yeah, here's the thing...

People who come across as arrogant, obnoxious, and holier than thou turn my stomach. Seriously. I find people like this absolutely toxic.

I didn't even bother reading the above post, as I'm sure it was the same repackaged load of condescension as I've seen from you over time.

Now go pat yourself on the back and be on your way. That you continue to drag this out knowing that I'm not reading it only tells me that you're playing to an audience at this point. So do your thing, I'm done here.

I've had enough toxic for this day.

Still listening for whenever you care to show how I'm "full of false assumptions and twisted narratives" in this subthread. Oh, and also, I'm really curious why you think you know whether or not I have a partner. Are you stalking me IRL? Should I be nervous?

And in all seriousness, I am curious why you want to be thought of as a liberal when you are constantly defending someone who is a self-described moderate Republican. And if I've missed your liberal posts, I'm sorry, I can't read every post on here, feel free to link to those as well. Or just answer the simple question of what liberal stances you have. That was the beginning of this whole discussion before it turned into you making accusations about me and name calling and just plain being rude. Don't worry, it isn't bothering me, sometimes you just have a bad day. I understand.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

204. Do all-caps LIBERALS also fear the unknown?

I know it takes some real stringing together of things, but you should probably know that the poster you're swooping in to rescue started all of this in post #70 bashing LIBERALS. So while I really like your self-identification as a liberal, your boy doesn't. And as you've so ably demonstrated, this discussion board is LIBERAL-friendly. And we don't apologize to anyone for that.

[Bobbie Jo]

210. Who are you trying to impress?

Take a hike.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

217. What do you suppose I'd hope to accomplish by trying to impress you?

No, I'm not trying to impress you--hopefully that's clear. It's a great day here for a hike, but it's getting a little late in the day to get started. Although I won't be hiking, I'm still interested in the cognitive dissonance of you loudly proclaiming to be a liberal (which is a new and welcome change) during the course of defending a poster who doesn't like liberals. Maybe some things are best left as mysteries.

[Bobbie Jo]

219. Didn't read, don't care

So you must be posting for the benefit of someone else.

Do you all earn points for the most obnoxious, or what?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

220. Didn't read, don't care. I'll bet you're a hoot at the book club. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

202. In what feel-sorry-for-yourself fantasy did I request to have you banned?

You can document your claim, can't you?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

247. Buzz? Mr Click? Is everything ok?

As a reminder, you were going to document your claim that I requested to have you banned. Problem is, I'm not seeing your response anywhere. Have things been busy for you? I'm often very busy on Mondays myself, so I get it. But anyway, please do go ahead and get around to providing that proof. Had this been Discussionist or some other right wing site, I already would have called my accuser a liar and a coward, since I never requested of anyone that you be banned. But this isn't Discussionist, and you're better than those submorons. There's no denying that we have differences, but still, we are both on the same side. So I think we can come together and deal with this honestly and openly. You're an honest person, I'm sure. Therefore you'd never tell lies about people in order to try to damage them.

But again, I get to that sticking point--the one about there being no evidence at all for the accusation you made. It was in post 114, just above and to the left of this post. You said "I'm sure they'd be interested in your request to have me banned". Again, do go ahead and provide a little documentation for your accusation. When I accuse someone of lying, I understand it's a serious charge, so I never level that accusation unless I can prove it. I'm failing to understand why you'd run away from the accusation that you made when all you have to do is show that you made the accusation in good faith.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

[Buzz Clik]

248. Never said it.

Obsess much?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

249. You left the subject out: "You never said it"--is that what you meant to type? If so thank you.

Thank you for withdrawing the accusation.

As to your question "obsess much?": yes, I guess I do when people make accusations I know not to be true.

Again, thanks.

[Buzz Clik]

250. It was a hypothetical spawned by your exclusionary attitude

I do not care that you cannot see that.

You really need to find a hobby.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

260. If by hypothetical you mean "vicious lie I tried to push as truth", then I accept your apology again

Next time you throw an accusation, try staying out of the realm of the hypothetical and stick with truth instead.

[Buzz Clik]

262. Now you've morphed from melodramatic to hysterical

You invited me to leave DU because I don't fit your ideology. I told you I would not. You again invited me to leave, and I suggested that if you are so insistent on my departure, you take it up with the proper committee, and we would see if your attempt at getting me banned was successful.

Review the thread, drama queen. But, I'm glad to be keeping you from being productive or perhaps annoying someone else who doesn't find your antics so amusing.

I cannot wait for your next ridiculous posting. Please don't disappoint.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

263. You just admitted telling lies about me. I won't be taking correction from someone of your caliber.

Actions do have consequences, and the very minor consequence here is that I'll never trust anything you say again. So please do save your advice for someone else.

[Buzz Clik]

264. Oh my god. You've taken the hysteria to a new level.

Please explain: what lie did I tell?

Please quote my words and link the post.

Thank you!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

265. "I'm sure they'd be interested in your request to have me banned"--Buzz Click

Bye now.

[Buzz Clik]

266. Yes, indeed. You have now joined the ranks of unapologetic bullshitters.

Well done.

I look forward to the same level of unhinged nonsense when we meet again.

[think]

106. Slamming liberals on DU?

really?

[Buzz Clik]

121. It's not a slam -- it's an observation.

Anti-vaxxers are generally liberals

Anti-GMO proponents are almost exclusively liberals

Anti-TPP is a liberal thing

All of these are vast unknowns that liberals (some or most, depending on the issue) fear to their marrow.

Tell me I'm wrong.

[think]

149. The majority of Dem politicians oppose Fast Tracking the TPP. It's the GOP that SUPPORTS it.

21 Democratic Senator are opposed and 61 members of the Democratic delegation in the House are on the record as opposed to fast tracking Fast Tracking the TPP

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/241114-whip-list-dems-bucking-obama-on-trade

Mitch McConnell, John Bohner, Paul Ryan and almost the entire GOP want to Fast track it. The republican US Chamber of Commerce wants it. The multi national corporations want it.

Calling it a case where some "liberals" are against it is completely disingenuous.

[JayNev]

230. Majority?

While I empathize with your position on TPP, I do need to point out that 21 and 61 are not majorities of Democrats in either the Senate or the House.

[Diclotican]

131. Buzz Clik

Buzz Clik

If anything - it is the conservatives who is terrified of the unknown - as they seldom want to get around to know new things... The TPP have more "unknowns" that "Knowns" - specially as mot of it, is still not known - or the implications of it would be if enacted - and if TPP is as good as some claim it to be - then surly TPP should be open to be studied - and read before some decision about it should be made...


Diclotican

[Buzz Clik]

135. Ok. Both groups are afraid of the unknown.

I personally find the conversative mindset to be nearly unfathomable. If you have it figured out, I'll take your word for it.

However, the unknown aspect of TPP evaporate the second fast-tracking is accepted.

[Diclotican]

147. Buzz Clik

Buzz Clik


The conservative mindset - is somewhat unfathomable - I have possible been able to break into some of it - but they often make me loss of words, when they turn and twist the world to their own wiews.....

But when it come to TPP - I would prefer to get everything out on the table -instead of hiding in the basement - and then suddenly get a surprise when the agreement is law...

Diclotican

[LanternWaste]

240. There's one thing "liberals" do even better... pretend to know what liberals do best.

There's one thing "liberals" do even better... pretend to know what liberals do best, and then follow it up with a little more than a petulant bumper-sticker.

I like to pretend it's rational thought, too.

[Buzz Clik]

245. I can document this endlessly. Care to play?

[msongs]

4. faulty conclusion - the parties don't HAVE TO give up on the bill without a TPA, that's just

one choice they make of several. If "the parties" back out its on them and shows pretty much what their intention has been all along, cramming it down the throats of the american citizens.

[ucrdem]

6. Technically perhaps, but practically speaking, it's necessary for two reasons:

1) Signatories won't sign without it, and
2) The bill would never get passed if Congress were permitted to introduce amendments which would then require 12-party ratification.

From the Brooking Institute:

And, quite simply, without TPA, there is no TPP. It is a commonplace observation that passage of TPA is not required to see a vote on a trade agreement. But this is a technical argument, when we need to understand the essential role of TPA as a political device to give complex trade agreements a chance at successful negotiation and ratification.

At home, TPA reassures Congress of having a meaningful role in setting the trajectory and objectives of U.S. policy. Far from an abdication of authority, TPA allows Congress to retain responsibility for laying out trade policy objectives, remain appraised of the progress in the negotiations, and act as the ultimate arbiter in deciding the fate of a trade deal.

Internationally, TPA reassures negotiating parties that the carefully calibrated package of reciprocal concessions will not unravel at the ratification stage. Granted, TPA is an imperfect credibility mechanism since it has in the past not stopped Congress from demanding renegotiations. But without the modicum of credibility that TPA provides, it will not be possible for the United States to obtain a good deal, either because TPP countries are genuinely concerned about future “asks” or because they have the perfect cover to avoid politically painful concessions on sensitive issues. Either way, the lack of TPA weakens the hands of American trade negotiators.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/03/13-geopolitical-importance-transpacific-partnership

[BainsBane]

40. Are the other nations passing Fast Track laws?

Are you suggesting that failure to pass a fast track agreement in any member nation will derail the whole deal, or just in the US?

[polly7]

86. Millions in other nations see these trade agreements as the POS cover to transfer more

Last edited Sun May 10, 2015, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)

money from the bottom to the top that they are, with no protections for the environment, health, jobs or anything else, because corporations trump all and will be able to (as NAFTA provides the same already) sue any gov't (it's taxpayers) that opposes any corporate decision. Corrupt or very poor gov'ts will have no chance against them, so of course the poorest of the poor will suffer even further. You really haven't read the opposition from around the world to all of this?

TPP Trade Deal Will Be Devastating for Access to Affordable Medicines

By Doctors Without borders

https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/tpp-trade-deal-will-be-devastating-for-access-to-affordable-medicines/


#noTTIP Train to transport 100 UK activists to confront trade negotiations in Brussels

“It’s unheard of to see so many people travelling to Brussels to lobby their MEPs like this, and that’s testament to just how hugely controversial and unpopular TTIP has become. David Cameron waxes lyrical about national sovereignty, but in pushing for this deal he is wilfully handing sovereignty to big business. The deal is not really about trade, it’s about entrenching the position of the one percent. It should be abandoned.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016112824


Scramble to Conclude Suspicious EU-US Trade Deal

UK industry is in intensive care. Should we throw open the door and allow America’s big business battalions to muscle in under cover of a trade treaty?

Critics claim that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) currently being cooked up between the EU and the United States could:

Weaken workers’ rights and put millions of jobs at risk;
Reduce environmental protection and food safety regulation;
Lead to more privatisation of public services like education and our prized National Health Service (NHS);
Give new powers for corporations to sue European governments, including the UK, in secret courts.
They complain that world leaders are working alongside major corporations at breakneck speed to get this deal sewn up, and refuse to give details.

An especially prickly issue is the imposition of investor-to-state dispute settlement rules (ISDS) enabling foreign investors to sue the host government.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016112581


New levels of TTIP rejection revealed by Commission’s public consultation

Tuesday, 13 January, 2015

The extent of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’s (TTIP) unpopularity across Europe was exposed today as the European Commission published the results of its largest public consultation in history. The results of the consultation, launched last year, were scheduled to be published in late 2014, but were delayed following an unprecedented number of largely negative responses.

The results of the consultation, which focused on ‘investment protection’ under the controversial trade deal, showed that

of the 149, 399 responses, 97% of participants have voiced either a general rejection of TTIP or opposition to ISDS in TTIP.
the largest number of responses, 52,008 or 34.8% of the total, came from the UK.
Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now (formerly World Development Movement) said:

“‘Investment protection’ is an innocuous sounding euphemism for corporations being able to bully governments behind closed doors for billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, so it’s little wonder that so many people across Europe are opposed to it. This public consultation has demonstrated once more the extent of TTIP’s unpopularity with European citizens."

..........

http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/2015/jan/13/new-levels-ttip-rejection-revealed-commission%E2%80%99s-public-consultation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1016&thread=112245

Those are just a few examples ............ there are hundreds.

By George Monbiot

Source: The Guardian
January 15, 2015

If a government proposes to abandon one of the fundamental principles of justice, there had better be a powerful reason. Equality before the law is not ditched lightly. Surely? Well, read this and judge for yourself. The UK government, like that of the US and 13 other EU members, wants to set up a separate judicial system, exclusively for the use of corporations. While the rest of us must take our chances in the courts, corporations across the EU and US will be allowed to sue governments before a tribunal of corporate lawyers. They will be able to challenge the laws they don’t like, and seek massive compensation if these are deemed to affect their “future anticipated profits”.

I’m talking about the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and its provisions for “investor-state dispute settlement”. If this sounds incomprehensible, that’s mission accomplished: public understanding is lethal to this attempted corporate coup.

The TTIP is widely described as a trade agreement. But while in the past trade agreements sought to address protectionism, now they seek to address protection. In other words, once they promoted free trade by removing trade taxes (tariffs); now they promote the interests of transnational capital by downgrading the defence of human health, the natural world, labour rights, and the poor and vulnerable from predatory corporate practices.

So keep marching, keep signing, keep joining the campaigns that have come together under the Stop TTIP banner. In an age of ecocide, food banks and financial collapse, do we need more protection from predatory corporate practices, or less? This is a reckless, unjustified destruction of our rights. We can defeat it.

Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/trade-secrets/

Published on
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
by Common Dreams

byBernie Sanders

?itok=0bc5AACn

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world.

The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty, the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process. Further, all Americans, regardless of political ideology, should be opposed to the “fast track” process which would deny Congress the right to amend the treaty and represent their constituents’ interests.

The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered "free trade" agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed trade agreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle class and increased wealth and income inequality. The TPP is more of the same, but even worse.

During my 23 years in Congress, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA and PNTR with China. During the coming session of Congress, I will be working with organized labor, environmentalists, religious organizations, Democrats, and Republicans against the secretive TPP trade deal.

Full article: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/31/ten-reasons-why-tpp-must-be-defeated


History Handbook: The Passion for Free Markets

By Noam Chomsky

April 25, 2015

The “American passion for free trade” entails that the U.S. government may violate trade agreements at will. No problem arises when communications, finance, and food supplies are taken over by foreign (mainly U.S.) corporations. Matters are different, however, when trade agreements and international law interfere with the projects of the powerful. Similar troublemaking beyond the hemisphere has also been no slight problem, and continues to spread “dangerous” ideas among people who “are demanding a decent living.

https://zcomm.org/zmagazine/history-handbook-the-passion-for-free-markets/

NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals

Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws, according to a new study.

The study from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) found that more than 70 per cent of claims since 2005 have been brought against Canada, and the number of challenges under a controversial settlement clause is rising sharply.

snip~

“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study.

snip~

There are currently eight cases against the Canadian government asking for a total of $6 billion in damages. All of them were brought by U.S. companies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system, most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.

Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.

These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).

Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million. The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

More: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study

[Recursion]

244. The other countries are mostly Westminster systems that don't need them

The equivalent of Obama in those countries is a figurehead monarch or ceremonial President; the treaties are negotiated by the equivalent of John Boehner (generally a Prime Minister).

[Hoyt]

78. Oh, come on, you know those Brookings folks are just a bunch of well educated elites.

What do they know about anything?

{Sarcasm thingie}

[HereSince1628]

102. IMO objection to TPA is about right to amend the agreement

Of course, the politicians who know what is in the TPP need public pressure to rally other members of congress to defeat the TPA which takes away the right to amend the agreement.

But people won't rally unless they know the evil things that are in it.

When the administration suggests everyone can see the bill, after your right to change anything is discarded, comes across as disingenuous.

[Chan790]

108. You've hit the mark...

the right to see the bill after the right to change anything is discarded is worthless.

The reason the public should be allowed to see the bill is to be able to force the agreement to be changed.

[Buzz Clik]

125. Wrong.

Fast-tracking is merely a means of protecting the agreement from Congressional bullshit -- hanging nuisance amendments all over it, such as anti-abortion and a myriad of other conservative sweetheart issues.

The fear of fast-tracking is a line a crap concocted by the paranoid and carried like a pitchfork by people like Elizabeth Warren.

[HereSince1628]

144. Some amendments might be nuisances, others might be significant and desireable.

Of course, those amendments would have to be voted on and passed to be incorporated into the consideration of the trade agreement.

If TPA passes we'll never know what amendments would be, your argument is presumptive, and not backed up by where support for TPP and TPA currently exists. Current support exists mostly among conservatives and so it seems nuisance amendments would be unlikely to get conservative support on votes from the floor.

[delrem]

8. The public has never been consulted on this trade deal.

It has been entirely in secret, and now you want to fast track it into law.

[ucrdem]

12. The outline and progress of the current agreement have been available to the public since 2011:

USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Outline

13 November 2011

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#ixzz3ZiO5UX4Y

Lots more in other places too.

[LateKnight85]

38. You said the doc doesn't exist but

you have an "outline" my outline didn't work when my essay in HS was due and for me this outline isn't good enough either

[cui bono]

212. Spot on.

Welcome to DU!

[morningfog]

10. Pretzel logic there. You say if no TPA no trade deal.

Where's the disconnect. This is a bad deal. If it can be halted by nixing the TPA, good.

Strange OP, pure Orwellian.

[ucrdem]

13. Call it a Catch-22 that certain politicians have exploited to their advantage.

But yeah the TPA is needed to get the TPP before the public. That's just the way it works.

[cascadiance]

65. They've succeeded in having you and others THINK that that is the way it works!

I guess propaganda works pretty well with some people.

Yes, if you bypass what our founders put in place to prevent bad treaties being written that hurt American citizens, then you'll constantly get bad legislation that screws over most of the people. Our "free trade" deals over the last few decades have shown this to be the case that just about all if not all of these laws that have been passed through "fast track" or other similar means to bypass public scrutiny, have lead us to have our economy and the world economy revisit the conditions that happened before our first depression when the system was also being run poorly by the powerful few, that took a lot of work to get us out of that mess.

If the TPP is sincerely different than all of these other free trade deals that both parties have supported in corrupt fashion, then those involved shouldn't feel bad about having the details made public to get public support for it and solidify themselves in better favor with their constituency of working for them and not against them. Being done in secret does the opposite and increases distrust for those perceived as part of this collusion. Yes, many dictators do things in secret and later when they implement draconian policies, THEN their policies become completely public, but in a way that the people under those dictatorships have no power to have these policies changed. "Transparency" done in that fashion is ABSOLUTELY F'ING USELESS!!!!

The time for transparency is at the time when it is being built and can be changed, so that such policies can be made that serves what the public wants, not what just the powerful wants.

If such agreements can't be built with this kind of process used to build them, then they shouldn't be approved in a democratic system. Americans don't need to know every detail, but they should know the key directions that a trade agreement has as its goals and what it looks to achieve, so that the public can buy off on those goals. Perhaps having it such that we as an American country have our sovereignty protected, and that we have policies that don't make it easier for other countries to export to us rather than us exporting to them, or that we have means to counteract those situations if trade imbalance persists, so that we can put back in place tariffs or other means to correct such flawed policies to restore balance that we once had that kept us from building huge trade deficits, losing jobs, screwing up the environment, etc.

[Chan790]

110. If no TPP without TPA...then NO TPP!! n/t

[morningfog]

155. The TPA is needed to get the TPP period.

It won't pass otherwise. That is why there is no inconsistency in opposing both. Both are bad.

[cui bono]

167. No. That is NOT the way it works. If it were nothing would have gotten done without it.

[delrem]

17. It's a tight knot.

The guy is claiming that we can't be shown the TPP because it doesn't exist until passed into law, which is why we need this "fast track" framing. So the citizens who weren't consulted on this TPP deal at any point - it being top secret except to the banking parties - are told that they can't see what it is that they're going to "fast track", until "fast track" is granted.

This is Milo Minderbinder level dealing!

However, even Milo gave us a fucking egg.

[ucrdem]

22. Congress was consulted repeatedly

and their job is to represent us. If they didn't show up, that's on them.

[delrem]

24. Then some peeps should just stfu about Warren and Bernie etc. doing just that!

[ucrdem]

25. USTR Froman: ‘We Have Had Over 1,200 Meetings With Congress On TPP’

http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/04/03/ustr-froman-we-have-had-over-1200-meetings-with-congress-on-tpp/

So apparently it hasn't been negotiated in secret at all.

[delrem]

32. Is that why the transcript are available?

I was wondering where all that transparency came from.
Thanks for the explanation, ucrdem.

Now, on to fast tracking it, since we've always known exactly what it is that we're fast tracking, but just couldn't talk about it. And incidentally: Elizabeth and Bernie have been lying their asses off, saying that this wasn't the most transparent trade deal in all of history.

[cali]

52. funny,over a hundred dems say, essentially, that

Froman is full of shit with that claim. Sherrod Brown has been particularly vocal (and passed off about it).

[cui bono]

196. even pissed off about it!

[TheKentuckian]

146. A bad deal affect us for ill way more than the millionare Congress so the shit would be on US

Placing blame is not helping workers a bit.

[MFrohike]

15. This is just stupid

I'm sorry, I can't be more polite but that is the worst reasoning I've seen on this site in a while. I get that you're trying really hard to somehow to muddy the water regarding the TPP, but, man, you're really doing a terrible job of it.

Sanders and Warren haven't harped about secrecy to get access to the documents, which they have under unprecedented restrictions, but to defeat the treaty. The point of defeating fast track is to defeat the treaty. They've been quite open about this. Why are you being, as politely as possible, dishonest about their clearly stated motives?

[ucrdem]

18. Because the chief reason Sanders and Warren offer for opposing it is its secrecy,

and that's dishonest. If they'd represented the thing honestly in the first place, I wouldn't have an issue, but they didn't. They took the low road for a quick payoff. Can't make it simpler than that, sorry.

[MFrohike]

35. Wow

So you're being dishonest because you claim they're being dishonest? Bravo.

By the way, they've offered more reasons than that for opposing it: ISDS, the further extension of an already ridiculous government-granted monopoly system, the full-out attack on financial regulation, etc. The argument over secrecy is but one part of a larger strategy. It just so happens to resonate quite strongly these days, which should come as no surprise.

The low road? Man, that's hilarious. You are aware that the level of secrecy is unprecedented, right? At least one congressman has remarked that it's easier to get intelligence reports on the never ending war on terror than it is to see the TPP documents.



Edit: If this is your standard of dishonesty, I'm mighty curious what you must think of the president in this affair. After all, he's argued that it's necessary to boost employment, to boost exports, to strengthen workers' protections overseas, to "prevent China from writing the rules", etc. With that many rationales trotted out, I have to wonder why you haven't posted an OP attacking his motives.

[ibegurpard]

19. precisely

the goal is to defeat the treaty. The secrecy thing is a vulnerability that can be exploited to that end.

[cali]

53. +1

[LondonReign2]

191. SOP for this OP

[PSPS]

16. LOL

Sorry, that's "swooner logic." The only reason this was composed in and remains secret is because it would never withstand scrutiny.

"Here, take this pill. It will be good for you."

"What is it?"

"We can't tell you. You just have to take it. It will be good for you"

[ucrdem]

20. Okay I get it, but instead of acting as honest brokers

Sanders and Warren have clouded the issue with demagoguery. In Warren's case it's not the first time she's played this game. I'd rather deal with complicated issues honestly.

[Scootaloo]

23. So... How's this thread workin' out for you, ucrdem?

[ucrdem]

26. It's getting the facts out, for example ...

It turns out the "secrecy" issue is pure baloney:

The United States Trade Representative’s office has held over 1,200 meetings with the US Congress about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, USTR Michael Froman told a congressional committee hearing on the US trade agenda today. This appears to counter criticism that the TPP talks have lacked transparency and non-industry input.

Froman told the House Ways and Means Committee hearing that the 12 Pacific-bordering nations in the TPP talks are trying to finish the deal this year.

http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/04/03/ustr-froman-we-have-had-over-1200-meetings-with-congress-on-tpp/

[delrem]

28. I kinda like the escheresque logic of it.

[treestar]

96. Do you have something to say about the OP or just

junior high level taunts?

[Scootaloo]

165. The latter. I have learned it's a waste of time to engage True Believers™

[neverforget]

29. I guess this is a better argument than the xenophobic/isolationist one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6648640

ucrdem (5,430 posts)
58. In the absence of a substantial alternative proposal, I agree.
Basically they're playing the xenophobia card and getting props for being "liberal" which is seriously WTF. Alan Grayson is apparently thumping a Warren Buffet trade deal which makes me wonder what's really going on here.

The argument now is: pass the TPA so we can see what's in the TPP so it can't be amended and only voted up or down.

You're trusting a Republican majority in Congress to do the right thing.

[ucrdem]

30. Perhaps but I'm not arguing. I'm setting the record straight so that it CAN be argued. nt

[neverforget]

33. Such nobility and sincerity while labeling those opposed as xenophobes.

Good night.

[cui bono]

222. YOU'RE setting the record straight?

So I am just having a nightmare. Phew. Can't wait until I wake up from this craziness.

But on the off chance that I really am awake... did you ever state the lies that Sanders and Warren are telling? Since you're setting the record straight and all, please, enlighten me.

And also, can you please tell me what the record states about why a president in a democracy would want to have a major agreement like this fast-tracked so that once it is public it can no longer be amended? So basically, only allowing the people who he is supposed to be representing to see something once it's a done deal? That doesn't make sense to me in a country where the govt is supposed to be of, by and for the people.

Thanks!

[eridani]

31. Why are you so proud to be standing with Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein? n/t

[ucrdem]

34. Personally I'd just like to see the finished bill. If it's bad we'll know it

and I have no doubt that it won't get signed. I don't think it will be bad but it's better to know than guess.

[eridani]

49. Jamie and Lloyd can see it. Why can't you and I? n/t

[TheKentuckian]

139. "If" it is bad we have no way to prevent the TeaPubliKlans and Obama from passing it...none.

One fast track is passed the subsequent action is going through the motions. It is passing the agreement for all practical purposes.

[AtomicKitten]

37. *cough* bullshit

[cali]

39. bullshit of the worst kind. let's parse

1) you mischaracterized Sanders objections which have largely been against the tpp itself, not the secrecy around the negotiations. He is being wholly consistent. He voted against NAFTA and every other FTA. No, he's neither an isolationist or anti-trade; he believes these trade deals are written to benefit corporations and that they cost jobs here, hurt workers abroad more than help them, and do other damage. So far, he's been correct. Warren has objected to process, but also to things like the ISDS provision. Neither can elaborate on the specifics they've read in the drafts.

2) Yes they know without the TPA there will be no agreement. It's the most effective way to kill it. Pass the former and it such more difficult to kill the latter.

3) Answer: They and over a hundred other dems in the House and Senate aren't calling for the tpa to be passed because they believe the tpp is a bad agreement and they want to stop it. Yes, it will be published prior to the up or down only vote. All these dems are aware of how difficult it becomes to defeat after the tpa passes.

Your op reflects a startling lack of knowledge and a sad willingness to disassemble.

[BainsBane]

42. Thanks for that explanation.

[ucrdem]

43. #1: Wrong. He's playing the secrecy Wurlitzer for all to hear:

Bernie Sanders To Obama Admin: Let Me See The Damn TPP Draft

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/06/1355859/-Bernie-Sanders-To-Obama-Admin-Let-Me-See-The-Damn-TPP-Draft

#2 & #3 follow from #1 and fail with it.

[cali]

47. fail. I didn't say that he had never objected

to process issues. I explained that he objected to the tpp itself and that he has NEVER voted for an fta in his 25 years in Congress. And of course, you studiously avoided ever other point in my post.

You really don't know enough and you, er, aren't forthcoming enough to have a discussion with on this topic.

[Llanganati]

41. Do you honestly think the bill will not be passed

Do you honestly believe that if fast-track is authorized that the bill will not be passed (irrespective of which of the two parties of capital are in control of congress)?

This agreement should be opposed out of hand by progressives. Under a capitalist system, the primary goal of a firm is to generate profits. In the modern world it is most profitable to produce in the peripheries of capitalism as regulations and wages are minimal in those places. The point of any free trade agreement in the modern era of global monopoly capitalism is to facilitate production in more profitable places and to facilitate transportation of those commodities back to the markets in the capitalist core. However, the TPP looks to do more than that (which is already disastrous for American jobs and the workers and peasants of those countries being re-colonized by capital), it seeks to give multinational corporations the ability to take national governments to court if they believe the government in question has in some way tampered with the corporations' "expected profits."

Effectively, this would give multinationals the power to pressure governments to slash wages and regulations in order to make production in the core profitable once more (not that the capitalist state requires much pressure to work in the interest of, well, capital).

In any case, this is a move to further reduce the accountability of the state to its population.

[BainsBane]

44. Welcome to DU

I hope you stick around. It's nice to see some Marxist analysis.

[ucrdem]

45. Yes, TPA is needed or the treaty dies on the vine.

If Sanders and Warren have specific objections, for example to ISDS, they need to argue the merits honestly instead of relying on dishonest characterizations like "secrecy" and "sovereignty" which belong on AM radio rants, not in Democratic discourse.

Brookings Institute again:

And, quite simply, without TPA, there is no TPP. It is a commonplace observation that passage of TPA is not required to see a vote on a trade agreement. But this is a technical argument, when we need to understand the essential role of TPA as a political device to give complex trade agreements a chance at successful negotiation and ratification.

ETA: Okay I misread your question which is, will it automatically pass with TPA? Answer: No. If it doesn't live up to the advance billing it won't be signed. You can thank NAFTA for that.

[Llanganati]

46. I have not disputed that

Pardon me if I was unclear, but my question was if you think there is a chance that congress will vote against the bill if TPA is authorized and a finalized treaty is provided to them. Personally I do not see either a democratic or a republican congress scrapping the finalized trade deal.


Edit: I see you edited your post, but I was more referring to whether you thought congress would approve or not.

[ucrdem]

48. Right, I misread it. I added an ETA with my best guess which is that if there's still a hue and cry

from labor and environmental groups after the treaty is made public, Congress might pass it, but Obama won't sign it. Of that I have little doubt.

[Llanganati]

51. We'll see, clearly

you trust the president far more than I do.

However, I hope you are right.

[BainsBane]

54. Why would he be pressing so hard for something he won't sign

That makes no sense. Of course he will sign it.

[TheKentuckian]

145. He is the one pushing it! Your logic is crap on this. If Congressional Republicans and Obama want a

a bad deal there is no check on their ability to push it through once fast track is approved and you know it good and well.

[KingCharlemagne]

157. AKA: Feudalism, v 2.0 - nt

[AzDar]

55. Jesus Hopped-Up Baldheaded CHRIST...

This one takes the proverbial cake...
STOP THE TPP!!!

[Elwood P Dowd]

56. Its 1993 all over again. Some of us never learn.

History keeps repeating itself with these fake free trade deals, and some just never freaking learn from the past. The PTB want to drive yet another nail into the coffin, and some here are more than willing to loan them a hammer.

[Nay]

153. I know. I keep banging my head against a wall, too. Over and over again, the same screwing

of the populace, and so many people just can't see it.

[marmar]

59. Is today April 1?

Or is this a series of links to The Onion?

[Katashi_itto]

60. Wow...some of the worst propaganda yet.

Not even an attempt to be sound logical

[hobbit709]

61. Goofiest post of the morning.

[cali]

62. if by goofy you mean

least forthcoming on the facts, then yeah.

[hobbit709]

63. I was trying to be polite

If I said what I really thought it would get hidden for one reason or another.

[Scuba]

64. I miss the unrec button.

[think]

66. 600 corporate lobbyists appreciate your efforts. The unions

Not so much....

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Union-Members-Drop-Off-TPP-Petitions

http://www.cwa-union.org/issues/entry/c/trans-pacific_free_trade_agreement

[Buzz Clik]

68. Excellent point. One I have been making for weeks

Warren particularly has been disingenuous on this issue for all the reasons you outline.

[ucrdem]

93. Thanks, and if ever there was an object lesson in confirmation bias

this thread is it. Warren and Sanders lie but Obama we're told is the one we need to mistrust. Okay . . .

[Chan790]

115. When Barack Obama finds himself in coalition with the GOP against his own party...

it's time for him to say his mea culpa and admit he is absolutely on the wrong side.

He's the one pushing the GOP line...and the GOP line is always bullshit.

Ergo, the line being pushed by the President is the one to mistrust here.

[ucrdem]

118. Trade treaties are a hallmark of liberalism. We claim to be liberals

but we're quick to believe a couple of come-lately demagogues trying to destroy an innovative trade treaty that's probably never going to get better. Strange.

[Chan790]

152. I've been anti FTA for decades...the rest of liberalism is catching up to me. :)

Generally...if you're negotiating a trade deal and the voices at the table being given the largest gravitas (which is certainly going to be the case with a USTR like Froman) belong to big business, you know it's a bad deal for workers, women and the environment.

If Obama wants TPA for TPP...I want a Wobbly who is a member of the Green Party for USTR.

[KingCharlemagne]

158. How is a statement like 'Warren and Sanders lie" not a violation of DU's ToS? - nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

71. Okay, so the way I understand it:

If TPA passes:
1) The other signatories are happy;
2) They finish crossing the T's and dotting the I's;
3) Everybody directly involved signs off on it;
4) The final agreement it released to everybody;
4) It goes to congress for final approval, straight up-or-down, no amendments;
5) It either passes or fails and that's that.

If TPA DOESN'T pass:
1) The other signatories may or may not even want to hash through it all again;
2) More T's and I's get molested;
3) A final agreement gets released;
4) It goes to congress for full debate and amendments, where every worthless nutjob gets to try to add (or remove) crap to their heart's content (think: Cruz, Inhofe, etc.), some gets in, some doesn't;
5) The amended version goes back to the trade representatives to be re-negotiated with the other signatories, who get to add in all the crap THEY didn't think of last time around;
6) Go to step (2) and repeat until the sun goes supernova.

The President doesn't trust congress, congress doesn't trust the President, and American workers aren't too damned thrilled with EITHER of them right about now.

So, if I'm correct about the process, killing the TPA would probably effectively kill both the TPP and the TTIP.

And from what little I've been allowed to see about both of them, good. Trouble is, King-in-Waiting Jamie and King-in-Waiting Lloyd will be back next administration to try again...

[cali]

74. well.. no. You are correct re passage of the tpa

you are wrong about the process if it fails. President Obama will not submit it to Congress if it fails. Other countries will not agree to the tpp being subject to change from our Congress. It dies for the foreseeable future if the tpa doesn't pass.

But you're right; kill the tpa, kill the tpp.

[Buns_of_Fire]

75. Thanks. I think I've got it now (not that my understanding will change the outcome).

It's like one of those little puzzle boxes where you've got to slide tab (a) to open slot (b) so you can release trigger (c) so...

Anyway, thanks for all the work you've put in on this.

[cali]

76. thanks. I never imagined I'd become so fascinated with

trade issues, but here I am.

I appreciate the kind words.

[sendero]

72. Nobody with 2 brain cells...

.. to rub together (and not one of the 1%) wants anything remotely like the TPP. There is nothing there for people, only for big corporations. Enough already.

So yes, they ARE trying to kill it, as they should.

[Autumn]

73. That's just loco.

[marym625]

223. Very nice way to put it

Better than I would have said

Ignorance is not always bliss it seems

[99Forever]

77. I love the smell of neoliberal desperation in the morning. n/t

[leveymg]

79. The negotiating framework is fatally flawed - take it or leave it, secret till complete. Scrap that

Start over with a transparent process that involves labor, environmental, human rights, small business and all interested parties with consensus-driven outcomes. As it is, TPP reflects the agenda of Multinational Corporations and foreign exporting states. Not acceptable. We'll take a pass on this one.

[Hoyt]

80. Wrong. In addition to small and large corporations who trade internationally, these are some of the

groups that have been involved:

The American Association for Laboratory Accreditation
Africa-America Institute
Alliance of Western Milk Producers
American Butter Institute
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF)
American Sheep Industry Association, Inc.
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Audubon Naturalist Society
Boston University
Brookings Institution
Business Software Alliance
Commissioner, Miami Dade County
Consumers Union
Council of Great Lakes Governors
Council of State Governments
Dept. of Economic Dev. & Commerce
Duke University
Florida Farm Bureau Federation
Georgia Agricultural Commodity Commission for Peanuts
Institute for International Economics
Maine House of Representatives
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Maryland Port Administration
Mayor/ Orlando, Florida
Mayor/City of Doral, Florida
Mississippi Development Authority
National Association of Attorneys General
National Center for State Courts
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Governors Association
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
North Carolina Farm Bureau
Office of Governor of State of Washington
Office of Governor/New Jersey
Princeton Healthcare, Inc.
South Carolina Farm Bureau
South Carolina State Ports Authority
State of Arizona
State of Nevanda Global Trade & Investment
Supreme Court Chief Justice/Wisconsin
Texas A&M University
Texas Department of Agriculture
Texas Farm Bureau
Texas House of Representatives
The Humane Society of the United States
Treasurer, State of Nevada
United Auto Workers
United Farmers USA, Inc.
United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW)
Washington State Potato Commission


There is also a Trade Labor Advisory Committee that includes the major unions.

Clayola Brown National President, A. Philip Randolph Institute
Thomas Buffenbarger International President, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM)
Jim Clark President, International Union of Electronic, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE)
Leo Gerard International President, United Steelworkers (USW)
Raymond Hair President, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM), AFL-CIO/CLC

Joseph T. Hansen President, United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW)
Mary Kay Henry International President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Ed Hill International President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
James P. Hoffa General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT)
Ken Howard President, Screen Actors Guild/American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)
Gregory Junemann International President, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE)
Richard Kline President,Union Label & Service Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Lee Moak President, International Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), AFL-CIO
Jorge Ramirez President, Chicago Federation of Labor
Cecil E. Roberts, Jr. President, United Mineworkers of America (UMWA)
Arturo Rodriguez President, United Farm Workers of America (UFW)
Sara Nelson International President, Association of Flight Atendants, AFL-CIO (CWA)
Lee Saunders President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Richard Trumka President, American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
Baldemar Velasquez President, Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC)
Randi Weingarten President, American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Dennis Williams President, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
Forthcoming President, Transportation and Trades Department, AFL-CIO

[leveymg]

83. No environmental groups; I don't see any of these unions advocating strongly for TPP.

What I see in this list are employees unions in industries and corporations that dominate the US delegation. These groups are coopted or junior partners that have been added for the sake of appearance rather than consensus. If they really had a significant role, they'd be strong advocates - by and large, they aren't.

[Hoyt]

90. Do you know how to search for information?

Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee Members

Humane Society of the United States
National Foreign Trade Council
World Wildlife Fund
Rhodium Group
Consumer's Union
World Animal Protection
The Nature Conservancy
Duke University
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Oceana
Solar Energy Industries Association
Endangered Species Coalition
International Wood Products Association
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)

And it's not like the EPA, etc., aren't right down the hall.

[leveymg]

91. Don't be a condescending advocate. Didn't they teach you that?

Try again. These aren't major environmental groups. The ones you listed are Astroturf or industry captives.

The reason why there is so little real, grassroots support among environmental and labor groups is the mechanism under TPP for private corporations to sue states for regulations they don't want. Even the WTO Trade dispute resolution body requires national governments to initiate complaints. The TPP removes that necessary safeguard and hands that power to corporations and lobbyists. No thank you.

[ucrdem]

113. Apparently there's a small army of environmental groups involved in the process:

https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/environment/public-outreach

[leveymg]

151. Again, that's a small army of industry trade groups and astroturf "environmental" groups

USTR relies on the advice and input of the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC) in developing and implementing trade and environmental policy decisions related to our trade agenda.

( . . .)

USTR and Peru Environment teams meet with representatives of the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), wood products industry and stakeholder NGOs to discuss implementation of the Environment Chapter and Annex on Forest Sector Governance:
TEPAC - Humane Society International, Venable and the Center for International Environmental Law
Industry - International Wood Products Association, ADEX (Peru)
NGOs - Global Witness, NRDC, and Environmental Defense

Even here, these advisory groups aren't necessarily involved in the TPP. Many are ad hoc and created by industry or contractors. Of this, I know what I'm talking about.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

82. Your argument seems to be 'If they were honest, they'd call for a fait accompli'.

Warren and Sanders (and everyone else) want to see the text BEFORE giving the President the opportunity to pass the TPP with strictly Republican backing in both House and Senate. Why is it you feel it's so important to allow Republicans and the corporate lobbyists who wrote most of the bill what they want?

[PowerToThePeople]

84. Boo hoo, Multi-national Corporations have a sad.

WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

[MichMan]

85. Seems like I heard this before

We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what's in it.................

Sounds familiar.

[GoneFishin]

88. OP is desperate double-talk.

[ucrdem]

92. The sad fact is that politicians lie, even the ones you like.

Even populists. The only defense I see offered here is that the ends justify the means. Maybe, but I disagree. If their means are dishonest there's no reason to trust their goals. As for particulars, Warren and Sanders have consistently lied about this treaty all year. Sanders for example wrote in a December CommonDreams article quoted above:

The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty, the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/31/ten-reasons-why-tpp-must-be-defeated

But that isn't true. Congress has been briefed hundreds of times on the TPP, including Sanders:

USTR told HuffPost it had ramped up congressional outreach, and has held nearly 1,600 meetings on Capitol Hill over the trade pact.

“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

So somebody's lying and the aim of the OP is to point out that Warren and Sanders have been consistently dishonest in their representations of the TPP. Leading by misleading isn't leading at all.

[bigtree]

94. Obama's argument for TPA is let me sign the treaty, lock it in so it's assured passage

...in this republican Congress, and I'll let you see what's in it.

Oh, yeah, there's also the cynical, insincere promise that TPA can be revoked by a super-majority vote - something which he knows well won't happen in the republican-dominated majority with already enough Democrats approving to give him the edge to block such a revocation.

[ucrdem]

97. He would sign it only after we've had at least 60 days to review it and Congress endorses it.

And those are just a few of many safeguards written into the TPA:

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=7701eb50-a0ef-4257-bfc1-b06efe725b8c

[bigtree]

107. The bill would make any final trade agreement open to public comment for 60 days

...before the president signs it, and up to four months before Congress votes.

Boston Globe:

The bill would make any final trade agreement public for 60 days before the president signs it, and up to four months before Congress votes. If the agreement, negotiated by the US trade representative, fails to meet the objectives laid out by Congress — on labor, environmental, and human rights standards — a 60-vote majority in the Senate could shut off “fast-track” trade rules and open the deal to amendment.

“We got assurances that USTR and the president will be negotiating within the parameters defined by Congress,” said Representative Dave Reichert, a Washington Republican and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee. “And if those parameters are somehow or in some way violated during the negotiations, if we get a product that’s not adhering to the TPA agreement, then we have switches where we can cut it off.”

Establishes...that the text of a completed trade agreement must be public for at least 60 days before the President signs it.
http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/4/tpa-drives-high-quality-trade-agreements-not-immigration-law


...Congress would vote, up or down, on an already signed trade pact.

[ucrdem]

111. Thanks, that's good info. The "switches" are what I meant by safeguards. nt

[bigtree]

126. the 'switches' are cosmetic bull

...designed to make it appear that Congress will be able to shut the bill down if they disapprove of the language.

What the president well knows is that this particular Congress, this republican dominated Congress, will not reject the trade pact and has a sufficient number of Democrats already on board with the deal to reject any attempt to 'switch' off the TPA. It's a cynical and insincere agreement for the TPA which does virtually nothing to change the fast track framework where Congress will be voting, up or down on an already signed treaty.

That makes your argument that Warren and Sanders are lying untrue. Once the TPA, as agreed to, is passed, there's nothing really standing in the way of the signed TPP's passage in this Congress; just a slow-motion theater which is designed to make it appear there's some actual input from Congress on this corporate-derived and crafted trade pact.

[ucrdem]

127. I see. nt

[treestar]

95. I think they both see it as an issue to use

Which probably isn't going to get much attention other than from the internets. The TPP manufactured outraged appears internet based and only for political junkies.

[ucrdem]

104. The internet food-fight is getting some ink . . .

NYT:

Obama Calls Elizabeth Warren ‘Absolutely Wrong’ on Trade Deal
By PETER BAKERMAY 9, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/politics/obama-calls-elizabeth-warren-absolutely-wrong-on-trans-pacific-trade-deal.html

Haven't seen much TV lately so I can't say whether it's getting traction in the CNN-o-sphere but it's hard to imagine them passing up a juicy bit like this isn't it?

[Chan790]

100. Um...this one is obvious.

But they both know that without TPA, there won't be any trade bill

Have you considered that anti-free-traders might want there to be no trade bill? That in addition to not wanting to approve something sight unseen, they might actually favor the collapse of the trade negotiations?

I know I do.

[Logical]

109. LOL, I assumed this was from the Onion, what a totally silly post. nt

[whatchamacallit]

112. Might be the lamest post of the year

Brilliant deductive reductive reasoning!

[stillwaiting]

117. I simply don't understand why some around here want TPA to pass.

It will be in effect for 6 years.

What happens if a Republican gets the Presidency and the Republicans maintain their hold on Congress?

We, as Democrats, stopped TPA in '07 to prevent that from happening, but we could be fighting for it to happen after Obama's Presidency is over.

It just doesn't make a lick of sense to me, and I believe it's extremely dangerous.

And, Warren and Sanders probably both believe that if TPA gets granted that the TPP will pass. Period. As do I by the way. So, if they want to stop the TPP from passing, they MUST stop TPA from being approved. This has the added benefit of not granting TPA to a future Republican Presidency.

Bilateral trade agreements please. Trade agreements that can be easily modified and ended if needed.

[ucrdem]

123. I don't see where the objection to regulating international trade arises.

Maybe you'd prefer a trade war, followed by a shooting war? That's the basic alternative.

[stillwaiting]

137. OMG. Way too heavy handed. Boo! Fucking BOO! Try again. nt

[TheKentuckian]

119. We don't have the votes to stop a bad agreement if FastTrack is approved

Who cares about impotently reading it?

The TeaPubliKlans want it and we cannot stop it under those conditions so where is the "win"?

Inane premise.

[Marr]

120. Ever notice how the people here at DU who say the TPP isn't so bad

consistently argue the Administration's position, on everything from NSA domestic spying to 'negotiating' with Chained CPI?

[ibegurpard]

122. Oh most definitely

[ucrdem]

124. But you object to making the argument about personalities. Got it.

[Marr]

128. Your OP was asinine and so poorly done, the deceit was hard to miss.

I didn't know UCR offered Sophistry as a major.

[treestar]

133. Well so?

It is not possible that Obama supporters agree with him a lot?

[ibegurpard]

136. It is interesting how Obama supporters

are consistently pro-third way corporate policy supporters as well.

[treestar]

141. I imagine they don't agree with you on that

it's very vague. "Pro-corporate" is just a label. I assume there are many position on issues you consider "pro-corporate" and I don't. And as if anything any corporation wants has got to be the worst thing ever. Oversimplification.

[ibegurpard]

142. I would imagine you are correct

and you'd also be correct in stating there is very little that I have seen that we would agree upon when it comes to economic issues.

[cui bono]

166. No, pro-corporate is not just a label. Just as liberal is not just a label.

These descriptions actually mean something in politics.

What have corporations asked for that have benefited the working people? What legislation have they pushed for that would benefit the working people? What legislation have they fought against because it would hurt the working people?

[SwankyXomb]

154. There's a word for third-way pro-corporate Democrats.

Republicans.

[PowerToThePeople]

156. this. n/t

[Elwood P Dowd]

190. And some of them are here on DU pushing the corporate/republican trade agenda. (nm)

[neverforget]

150. trust him and everything will be fine

With Republicans and the US Chamber of Commerce pushing fast track and TPP so hard, makes me wonder why Obama is on board with this?

They've fought him tooth and nail on everything but this. Now they love that he's pushing this hard and expending political capital on it while punching some liberals along the way. It's certainly not because they became Obama fans, but that corporations will see their profits go up while their labor expenditures go down as they seek out the cheapest labor in countries like Vietnam.

[cui bono]

164. Yes. Because Obama.

It's all about defending him because in their eyes he can do no wrong.

And that idiotic 'it doesn't exist yet' line is so old. What sort of thinking person says something so ridiculous? What is Obama fighting so hard for - fighting for harder than anything else except his own bid for the presidency - if it doesn't exist? Doh!

[magical thyme]

132. you're joking, right?

You really are so short-sighted that you would push for passage of a bill that will enable fast-tracking of *all* future trade deals for the next x number of years (I forget the exact number, but well into the next administration), regardless of which party controls the white house?

Fast track is a bad bill, period.

There is no reason for TPP to not be released for review without fast-track...unless there is something hidden in its many thousands of pages that somebody doesn't want us to have time to figure out until it is too late.

All trade deals should live or die on their own merits, after *thorough* review and debate. Fast track is an attempt to end-run around thorough review.

[upaloopa]

143. Take somewhere else we know better here

[WhiteTara]

148. You can't add amendments to fast track

so while we can see...we can't prevent or alter.

[cui bono]

179. +1

[cali]

211. yes you can. you absolutely can. You can't add amendments to the tpp if the tpa passes

double sigh. no offense but this is like 7th thread like this I've seen today. the fast track (tpa which stands for trade promotion authority) is not the same thing as the tpp.

[cui bono]

226. I took the post to mean no amendments to the TPP if fast track is passed.

But now that I reread it I see what you are pointing out.

I do think that's what the poster meant to say though.

[cui bono]

163. BWAHAHAHA... Had to rec your own thread to get it on the 'greatest' page.

Gives me a little faith in DU, okay not faith really, just a teeny tiny glimmer of hope.

So you think politicians should give a go ahead on things they have never seen or don't know what they will be - and you actually claim this deal that has been being worked on in private for years now doesn't even exist?

edited...

[cui bono]

170. Sanders and Warren DON'T WANT THE TPP. End of your argument right there.

You claim their end goal is knowing what's in the TPP so they should just approve fast track - which the GOP will be able to use as well if they are in control (have you thought about that?).

But they both know that without TPA, there won't be any trade bill, because the parties won't sign off without it. But if TPA does pass, Warren and Sanders get exactly what they claim to want -- public access to the complete, final TPP.

They are not stupid as you seem to think they are. You are the one who has twisted up the logic so much to make it something where you can't even see what you are saying makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Their goal is to stop the TPP, not to give it fast track. They have seen enough to know it's a terrible deal. History shows you that these trade deals are horrendous and the TPP is far more egregious than NAFTA based on the leak we have seen and what we have heard from those who have seen it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

207. In this thread, I've learned that Sanders and Warren are liars (hat tip to the OP)

I also learned that if we don't sign the TPP, this will result in war (also thanks to the OP). I saw the term "liberal" used as a pejorative, followed by very hurt feelings on the part of the poster who used it as a pejorative because he was called on it.

Weird thread.

[Autumn]

256. No not a weird thread, it's a crazy loco thread.

[truedelphi]

180. It is surely a shame that some DU'ers, when faced with the fact that the Truth hurts them,

They then spend their lives concocting red herrings.

[cui bono]

182. And btw... what exactly are the lies Sanders and Warren are telling?

[libdem4life]

194. The Chamber of Commerces and the Republicans are Wild about it? What's not to trust for

ANY kind of Real Democrat? All of it.

We can squabble over the nuances and inferences and postulation and some things made up out of thin air... and have ad nauseum on this thread. At the end of the day, follow the money...and the two aforementioned groups have that thing down pat. Workers, unions, laborers, middle/poor class...they've never met one they liked.

Let Obama rest his laurels on the ACA...which in time will lead to Single Payer. But this? Doesn't pass the smell test, at least for what I consider as the Real Democratic Party.

[mike_c]

206. lame....

Seriously lame.

[DJ13]

227. Ugh

[JayNev]

229. OP needs a reality check

OP is one of those defending Obama saying that they believe he knows best and will do what is good for American workers. Gullible is the word that comes to mind.

Donations to Presidential candidates in 2008 by Goldman Sachs:

Obama ~ $1,000,000

McCain ~200,000

Goldman Sachs didn't get rich by investing money where there would not be a return.

What exactly is the truth about TPP, and why is Obama pushing so hard, when it obviously is going to damage US workers who are supposed to be the Democratic base? The reason is that Obama knows that Bill Clintons made tens of millions after his presidency from corporations. A similar payoff waits for Obama.

It is mind blowing that Obama who campaigned on creating the “most transparent Presidency” is now keeping the details of TPP secret due to the fear that it will energize its opponents. It is hard to oppose something without knowing what it is.

The TPP is going to push the US worker down even further. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and MNF for China are the reason why workers wages are stagnant while corporations make record profits.

Back in 2008 voters had a lot of illusions about Obama, but I felt he could not be trusted. His dealings with Exelon had shown he would do corporations’ bidding.

McCain would have led the US into new foolish wars, but he is too honest to try to pass secret trade agreements. The damage to US workers from free trade agreements is practically permanent. The rotten economy has led to a spike in suicides, especially among middle aged white males. Expect this sorry situation to continue.

Obama likely cares about the US workers, but just not enough to forsake the post presidency millions that wait for him.

[Number23]

232. Is this the thread that inspired the latest round of: OMG PAId SHILLS1!one!1 PAID SHILLLS11!!

The only thing stupider than those "OMG DU is infested with people who support Democrats so they must be paid by Obama!1" posts are the handful of simpletons that always run to agree with them.

I'm on other web sites where even moderately rec'd individual responses have three times the number of posts sitting at the top of the Greatest Page. So the idea that anyone would pay for anyone to play on this little slice of Libertarian hell is beyond hilarious. Although I could see the Pauls sending people here.

[neverforget]

233. If DU is a "little slice of Libertarian hell", why are you still here?

[Number23]

238. For the lolz. Purely for the lolz

[ucrdem]

234. LOL, probably.

[Romulox]

236. This is right up there with "populism means trickle down!" as one of the dumbest threads ever. nt

[JayNev]

237. Dumbest, possibly... alternatively...

gulliblest, Obama fanboi-est, living in la-la-landest... are also candidates.

40 years of American workers getting crushed by free trade agreements is still not enough for some to go around spouting this nonsense.

A free trade agreement that corporations can see, but the general public cannot... what's not to like?

[LanternWaste]

239. The tortured and twisted rationalizations of primary seasons begins now...

The tortured and twisted rationalizations of primary seasons begins now...

I like to pretend logical fallacies are actually logic too as it let's us maintain the pretense that we're so much more clever than we really are, and that A=-B is a valid premise from which to arrive at a valid conclusion. We both know it's not, but we'll keep that our little secret and simply hope no one has ever taken a college freshman logic class...

As you so eloquently stated, "I wonder why?"

[ucrdem]

252. Nothing tortured about it, and yes, I really do wonder why.

Playing "populist" politics with an important treaty to get (re)elected is one thing, but that isn't what I see happening. These two are running it out it seems to me, and the expression means exceeding what is allowable by the rules of the game. So I have to wonder what's really going on here.

[Faryn Balyncd]

253. Public Access AFTER the slides have already been greased by passing Fast Track for the next 6 years

..... is exactly what they do NOT want, as they have explicitly, repeatedly made clear.


Your assertion of dishonesty is, shall we say, less than accurate.


From the history of recent trade agreements, and from what we have gleaned from leaks about the current negotiations, we would be irresponsible to do anything to advance a corporate giveaway in the form of wholesale deregulation, intellectual property extensions, private tribunals for disputes regarding loss of projected profits that is being peddled as a "trade" deal, with the attempt made to expedite it via a process appropriately designed in the mid 20th century for tariff-reduction negotiations between tariff-imposing nations.


We have had a Fast Track process in place for 5 of the last 21 years (2002-2007). Most, but not all "trade" deals have been handled through a Fast Track process.

The problem is that these "trade" deals have evolved into a Fast Track to corporate sovereignty.




As you know, TPA is not just about TPP, but will create an expedited no-amendment process for every pact that whoever happens to be president for 6 years chooses to submit to Congress. Any it would Require a super-majority to remove a pact from the Fast Track process.

To give away the farm for promises to be able to see the damning details of a TPP which needs to be abandoned would not be wise.

[ucrdem]

254. Arguing the merits is fine, but that isn't what I'm objecting to.

I'm objecting to their false claims of secrecy. Obviously, they have complete access to the negotiating docs, and have made full use of them to develop the various objections you mentioned. Fine, let's debate them. But to claim that the whole thing is being kept secret or that they can't discuss details is dishonest.

[Faryn Balyncd]

255. So making briefings classified, so that details cannot be analyzed by independent trade experts

... and shared with the press and public UNTIL AFTER Congress has limited its powers by approving an expedited Fast Track process and greased the wheels for passage is transparency?

The time transparency is needed is BEFORE the wheels are greased for passage, not after Congress has limited its powers by granting Fast Track authority.

The Fast Track process was created in a world of high tariffs, and a no-amendment, up or down vote may have been appropriate for negotiations for tariffs reduction agreements between tariff-imposing nations.

But to apply this process to agreements that involve broad areas of law over which Congress has the duty to legislate, and to limit the full open discussion until after Congress has greased the wheels for passage is not appropriate.

[JayNev]

258. "they have complete access to the negotiating docs" - Funny!

They are not allowed to take notes. They are not allowed to take their staff with them to see the documents. They are not allowed to reveal to others whatever little they remember from the reams of documents that are dumped on them.

Your idea of "complete access" is funny. An example of still more dishonest political spin.

[cali]

259. It's President Obama, alas, who is lying.

and Bernie hasn't spent much time criticizing the secrecy which damn well is real. President Obama could release the draft TPP (almost completed according to the USTR) or release finished parts of the text anytime.


And no, they cannot discuss the specifics. Period. The problem of being a trust the President sort as you are, is that you can't be bothered to actually do the research yourself. You just repeat propaganda.

So by way of response, here are ten moments where the President or his subordinates have lied – call it “misled” or “offered half-truths” or whatever; but I’m in an ornery mood so let’s just say lied – about his trade agenda:



1. 40 PERCENT: The President and his team have repeatedly described TPP as a deal involving nearly 40 percent of global GDP. This tells only part of the story. First of all, the U.S. by itself represents 22 percent of global GDP; a bill naming a post office would involve that much. Second, we already have free trade agreements with six TPP partners – Canada, Mexico, Australia, Singapore, Chile and Peru – and between them and us, that’s 80 percent of the total GDP in this deal. The vast majority of the rest is represented by Japan, where the average applied tariff is a skinny 1.2 percent, per the World Bank.

You can see this paragraph in graphic form here. The point is that saying TPP is about “40 percent of GDP” intimates that it would massively change the ability to export without tariffs. In reality it would have virtually no significance in opening new markets. To the extent that there’s a barrier in global trade today, it comes from currency manipulation by countries wanting to keep their exports cheap. The TPP has no currency provisions.


2. JOB CREATION: Saying, as the White House has, that the deal would support “an additional 650,000 jobs” is not true. This figure came from a hypothetical calculation of a report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which the Institute itself said was an incorrect way to use their data. “We don’t believe that trade agreements change the labor force in the long run,” said Peter Petri, author of the report, in a fact check of the claim.

The deal is actually more about building up barriers than taking them down. Much of TPP is devoted to increasing copyright and patent protections for prescription drugs and Hollywood media content. As economist Dean Baker notes, this is protectionist, and will raise prices for drugs, movies and music here and abroad.


3. EXPORTS ONLY: The Administration constantly discusses trade as solely a question of U.S. exports. A recent Council of Economic Advisors report touts: Exporters pay higher wages, and export industry growth translates into higher average earnings. But the Economic Policy Institute points out that this ignores imports, and therefore the ballooning trade deficit, which weighs down economic growth and wages. Talking about trade without discussing both imports and exports is like relaying the score of a ballgame by saying “Dodgers 4.” It is literally a half-truth. Recent trade deals have in fact increased the trade deficit, such as the agreement with South Korea. Senator Sherrod Brown notes that the deal has only increased exports by $1 billion since 2011, while increasing imports by $12 billion, costing America 75,000 jobs.

<snip>
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership/

[JayNev]

261. Cali, your post is thoughtful, well argued and important. Thank you!

[NCTraveler]

257. Two reasons.

1) It's good politics for both of them.
2) They oppose it. Easiest way to not get it passed is to not have it brought up. This is the first step in the fight to oppose it. If the TPA does pass, there will then be the fear the TPP will pass. Why wouldn't they try to head it off at the pass?