Democrats Reject Platform Proposal Opposing Trade Deal

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Democrats on Friday voted down an amendment to the party's platform that would have opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, avoiding an awkward scenario that would have put its statement of values at odds with President Barack Obama.

Members of a Democratic National Convention drafting committee defeated a proposal led by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., that would have added language rejecting the Pacific Rim trade pact, which has been opposed by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

The panel, which is developing the party's platform ahead of next month's Philadelphia convention, instead backed a measure that said "there are a diversity of views in the party" on the TPP and reaffirmed that Democrats contend any trade deal "must protect workers and the environment."

Allies of Clinton and Sanders pored over the 15,000-word draft of the platform on the first day of a two-day meeting in a St. Louis hotel. It was the result of late nights and long hours of policy exchanges between the two campaigns and the Democratic National Committee, reflecting the party's dividing lines and areas of consensus.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEMOCRATS_PLATFORM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-24-19-43-14

[chapdrum]

1. NAFTA didn't do enough damage.

[bjobotts]

15. It's the DLC moneyed interests vs the power of the people and the progressive wing...again

Opposing the TPP is a no brainer as is standing for a $15 min wage and banning fracking but the people's interests get overpowered by big money proving the party needs to return to its roots as the party of the middle class and the working poor. I'm sick of this party trying to supplant the republican party as wall street's party. Listen to the people not the corporations. This is no the Money Party... it's the Democratic Party.

[840high]

41. .that^

[creeksneakers2]

55. Some people just honestly disagree with you

[Human101948]

77. What are you supporting?

Shipping more jobs to Malaysia? Importing more programmers from India?

[creeksneakers2]

81. Those are part of the price that we pay.

[libdem4life]

106. And what is the price and for what is it paid?

Unless, of course, you happen to be with the 1%...you know ones...We've got ours, sucks to be you???????????

I'd like something more that 9 words.

[creeksneakers2]

111. OK

The price is lost jobs. Its paid to keep us competitive with the rest of the world and to keep prices down.

Can you imagine what things would cost now if it weren't for imports? I remember in the 60s there was a concept called "planned obsolescence." Companies were intentionally building products to fail within five years so that you would have to buy another one. It used to be that if a car lasted for 100,000 miles that was sensational. Foreign competition changed all that. I just bought a pair of sneakers for $13. That's less than they cost me 30 years ago. While you would have higher wages without competition the wages wouldn't go as far, so you wouldn't end up that much better off.

Without competition wages would go up but that would hurt exports. We'd be isolated from the global economy and continue to fall behind. 25 years from now we'd be one of the poor countries instead of one of the rich ones.

I was taught in Catholic school as a kid that people everywhere on earth are all God's children. So if somebody who is not an American gets an American's job that isn't the end of the world for me. Somebody who is willing to work for $4 a day needs that $4 much more than I do. Protectionists complain that foreign workers are being exploited. But as long as they are working voluntarily they must have decided that they were better off with the job than they were before. Those who don't want foreigners to get jobs unless they are well paid have nothing better to offer instead of the jobs. Lower wages mean faster spreading of jobs.

The low wages don't last forever. As more companies move in competition drives wages up. The standard of living has gone way up in China. As countries become saturated new countries are opened up and capitalism spreads. I heard on NPR yesterday that we've gone from 1.5 billion people with jobs to 3 billion people with jobs in a relatively short time period.

Sometime decades from now, the entire world will be saturated and there will be far less poverty. We'll all benefit from trade because different countries will each do what they do best. We'll all of us doing what we are best at there will be more for everybody.

Instead of the fallen behind protectionist economy, future generations here will have a thriving global economy. We lost jobs now but we'll have far more in the long run.

This isn't just the opinion of the 1%. A large segment of our population believes in free trade. Some leaders feel the heat from protectionists but hold steady, knowing that what they are doing is better than winning on the cheap gimmick like Trump. The leaders aren't all corrupt.

I hope that I don't get a hide for this but when somebody is so convinced that they are right that they believe anybody who doesn't agree with them must be corrupt, misinformed or stupid, etc I think that's a poor attitude and doesn't reflect well on the person possessing it. Humility and open mindedness make us wiser.

[libdem4life]

117. Thank you for the time and thought put into a difficult subject.

It was concise and informative. Being a 60s Boomer, I also remember Small is Beautiful ... had quite an impact.

I also have theorized that what's happening in the world now...how it all seems to be converging as another powerful book if those times...the 100th Monkey or Plato's Cave maybe. The Tipping Point...I think we're there.

I have been reading for the past two days and have barely scratched the surface of understanding what is going on...like most, I imagine. A first. Ireland. Scotland. What happens?

I hope you're right about the upside of all of this.

[creeksneakers2]

118. Thank you

I'm sorry I misjudged you.

[libdem4life]

119. ...

[OrwellwasRight]

120. You're hilarious with your planned obsolence.

I have and use a blender form the 1970s. Made in America. I have and wear jackets that belonged to my grandmother in the 1940s. Made in America. My made in China computers and cell phones and coffee pots last 2 years if I am lucky. Made in China t-shirts last a few washes before the colors fade.

And there is more to the economy than low prices. If your wages are higher, you don't need discounts so badly. I hope you are proud of your $13 shoes, probably sewn by a child laborer, or a forced laborer, or, if made in Vietnam, a forced child laborer, because yes, the Department of Labor says that Vietnam engages in forced child labor. That's who the TPP puts us in bed with. Permanently.

No one has a right to exploit others just because they want cheap shoes.

This fairytale that somehow reinforcing the same race to the bottom trade rules will someday eventually result in high wages for all even though they set up incentives for countries to keep wages and taxes and regulations low and returns to capital high has no basis in fact. Wages do not rise by magic. They only rise when workers get the power and leverage to drive wages up. The TPP and similar agreements put the power out of workers' hands because there is always somebody somewhere else willing to work for less. Capital is global, but workers don't have global rights and the TPP expands the rights of capital (through ISDS and other tools) without expanding the rights of workers (except in the most superficial way).

But, sure, yay $13 shoes!

[creeksneakers2]

121. Some counters and links

Not all products were designed to become obsolete. I'm glad to hear about your blender. I was mostly talking about the automotive industry. For most of us, a car is the largest consumer expense. See history and Volkswagen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#History_and_origins_of_the_phrase

Chinese quality isn't there yet but it probably will be. The Japanese build quality. I remember when made in Japan meant cheap as in not durable. Korea was building lousy cars when they first came out but they've improved them.

Yes, higher wages would help with higher costs and in the short run I think higher wages would outweigh. I don't think they would in the long run though.

My shoes weren't made by child or forced labor. I bought them at Walmart who has rules for its suppliers and audits and enforces them. (Yes, I know few on this board trust Walmart.)

2. Voluntary Labor
All labor must be voluntary. Slave, child, underage, forced, bonded, or indentured labor will not be tolerated. Suppliers shall not engage in or support trafficking in human beings. Suppliers shall certify that they have implemented procedures to manage the materials, including all labor related processes, incorporated into their products to ensure they comply with laws on slavery and human trafficking. Workers must be allowed to maintain control over their identity documents.
A. Voluntary Labor
1. All labor must be voluntary.
2. Slave, child, underage, forced, bonded, and indentured labor is prohibited.

http://cdn.corporate.walmart.com/7c/c3/3d339cb74ec9a2fad98fd43d3589/standards-for-suppliers-manual-english.pdf

Opening up low wage economies geared toward creating exports can cause dramatic growth in standards of living. Look at China.

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2013-10/24/content_30391004.htm

That happened because of market competition for workers, not labor unions.

I read tonight that TPP expands workers' rights.

The TPP’s promise of a new progressive rule book – one that includes enforceable agreements against child labor and workplace discrimination, measures to punish illegal logging and trade in protected species, and protections against consumer fraud – would mark a substantial step forward in the progressive policy agenda on the global stage.

http://theconversation.com/why-progressives-should-rescue-the-tpp-trade-deal-60304

The labor standards are there. It will be up to us to enforce them.

Officials have not yet released the full details of the agreement. But it reportedly commits all parties to the International Labor Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work -- respect for the right to collectively bargain, the elimination of forced labor and child labor and the elimination of employment discrimination. On paper, U.S. trade deals have adhered to this since 2007. But on top of that, the Pacific agreement contains provisions on minimum wages, maximum hours and occupational health and safety, according to the USTR. It remains unclear how rigorous they are.

http://www.ibtimes.com/will-trans-pacific-partnership-improve-labor-standards-2127388

Somebody somewhere got to eat because I bought a $13 pair of shoes. Somebody probably ate because of your coffee pot too. I'm sorry it didn't last.

[OrwellwasRight]

125. 'walmart has rules'

You have a lot to learn about supply chain and labor issues. Wal-Mart does use child and forced labor, sweatshops, and unsafe workplaces.

Here is how shitty Wal-Mart is:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=tazreen+fire+wal-mart&form=EDGNTC&qs=PF&cvid=2ae5a4462d924df8b345513e1f09e02d&pq=tazreen%20fire%20wal-mart

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/16613/one_year_after_rana_plaza_safety_issues_in_walmart_supply_chain_persist

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/15/walmart-opts-out-bangladesh-rana-plaza

http://laborrights.org/publications/walmart-effect-child-and-worker-rights-violations-narong-seafood

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/13/costco-wal-mart-supplier-cp-foods-link-retailers-t.aspx

http://www.globalmarch.org/content/disney-mattel-and-wal-mart-toy-maker-accused-child-labour

http://www.guestworkeralliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Preliminary-Evidence-of-Forced-Labor-on-WalMart-Supply-Chain.pdf

Here is the problem with offering "corporate social responsibility" instead of respecting unions generally:

http://www.aflcio.org/Learn-About-Unions/Global-Labor-Movement/Responsibility-Outsourced-Report

Expanding exploitive jobs in poor countries can as easily make people poorer as better off:

http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-caused-migration-from-mexico/#sthash.VGqLqWqb.dpbs

http://www.witnessforpeace.org/downloads/Fact%20Sheet_Unjust%20Trade%20and%20Forced%20Migration_2010.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/under-nafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/NAFTA/NAFTA-at-20

The TPP will not "raise labor standards." No US trade deal ever has. The labor chapters are not written in a way that would actually do that, with critical pieces left out, like definitions for fundamental labor rights, independent secretariats to investigate and recommend cases, and strict timelines that would eliminate the discretion to ddelay a case forever.

http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/174525/4153892/1628_TPPLaborRightsReport.pdf

And see pages 15-16, 38-42, and 64-69 of this report: http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/174701/4156463/LAC+Report--Final+12-2-15+As+Adopted.pdf

Just because Ambassador Froman and the Third Way say the TPP has "high labor standards" doesn't make it true. Froman does not have a labor or human rights background, and neither does Third Way. They are saying this to "sell" the agreement to the public, nothing more. It is PR. No labor rights organization agrees with them, not one.

[creeksneakers2]

130. Thanks for all the links

[Silver_Witch]

126. Shopping at WalMart is something I have not done in more than 20 years.

They have ruless about keeping unions out. Treating women employees worse then men and scheduling so people can't have a second job. The give classes to employees how to apply for food stamps and medical care through government programs.

They are the most draconian of American companies. I think the TPP will bring all to the level of WalMart employees.

Hope America has enough revenue for all those food stamp she will be needing!

[creeksneakers2]

131. I work at Walmart

part time. They've been very flexible about scheduling my hours so I can keep my full time job. As far as I know, they are flexible with everybody. They need help.

I've never heard of a class on food stamps there. I've read about them elsewhere. I'm glad they assist employees.

My Walmart now starts at $11.00 and hour, which is higher than many other entry level jobs in the area.

Walmart gets its bad reputation because being the largest employer in the country. That makes it a target. Workers aren't getting rich there unless they make general manager. But Walmart does pay above average for retail.

I don't agree with the idea that Walmart causes its workers to need food stamps. If it weren't for Walmart, many of its employees wouldn't have jobs, and would need food stamps anyway.

I don't think TPP will have as much affect on our economy as prior trade agreements. Competition with low foreign wages are already factored in.

[Silver_Witch]

134. I worked at WalMart in a west Virginia!

It was as I describe and we did not get $11.00 an hour and they could send you home when the store slowed down so no reliable hours. They also would call you u in unexpectedly if the store got busy and if you refused to come 3 times you were not on the schedule any more. It was the worst job ever and I had to take a pee test and answer questions that had nothing to do with my job. Like didi I think marijuana should be legal!!!

Was so relieved when I found a job in my skill!! I am sad that people accept that standard from am employer and are so desperate for jobs they have to be okay with it and even cheerlead for them

Glad you like it.

[OrwellwasRight]

135. Your argument fails to factor in

the fact that the TPP increases corporate influence and gives more than 9000 new companies the right to sue us over public interest laws and rules in private tribunals. Giving away democracy in exchange for "low prices" is a bad deal.

And Wal-Mart has a bad reputation because it is a bad actor, not because it is big. Its business model thrives on the existence of taxpayer funded programs like food stamps (SNAP), welfare (TANF), and EITC. We are subsidizing Wal-Mart's low wages, low benefits, and no guaranteed hour employees. Its existence drives out competition, creating an oligopspny in the labor market, driving wages down. I met a guy (Joe Allen, Jr.) who used to own several unionized clothing factories in Texas. He produced for Wal-Mart until they told him he had to bust his unions so that he could get his prices down to the China price. He shut down instead of paying poverty wages. Wal-Mart is a bad actor, period.

It's nice that you like your employer and your job, but I would caution against making Wal-Mart a hero. I used to work for Safeway. I got 100% healthcare coverage with no premiums. Triple time on holidays. Vacation pay. Paid sick days. Paid maternity leave. Safeway no longer offers all that because it is competing with Wal-Mart's low road model. Instead of simply defending the status quo, we need to fight back. Human dignity demands more.

You might also be interested in this: http://features.marketplace.org/priceofprofits/

We need to fight the current model of globalization, not further strengthen it.

[creeksneakers2]

138. I disagree that Walmart causes food stamps

The workers are better off than they were without the jobs or they wouldn't be working there. I don't buy your assumption that Walmart owes these people a living wage. Walmart does what's best for Walmart. If Walmart didn't hire these people would be worse off, not better. Even more food stamps would be needed.

Then there are the complaints about Walmart's business model putting companies out of business. If we went back to the old way, we'd have to go to 20 different little stores to get out shopping done. We'd have to find a place to parallel park at each one. Prices would be higher. Owners of the stores might make a decent living, but the employees would make even less than they would at Walmart.

Fighting back shouldn't involve protectionism. That's a losing bargain in the long run.

[OrwellwasRight]

139. I never said Wal-Mart causes food stamps.

That doesn't even make sense. The federal government "causes" food stamps by passing a law that authorizes and funds the program. Wal-Mart's business model relies on food stamps. It could not afford to pay as little as it does without the existence of income supports from the federal government. Be clear: Wal-Mart would have to pay MORE if there were no income supports.

And yes, people used to go to local stores and support their neighbor's businesses and the money would be recycled into the community. I'm sorry but Wal-Mart didn't arise because people complained about "oh, I have to go to the grocery store and then the clothing store and then the hardware store, woe is me." And it is 100% false that employees at neighborhood stores make less than Wal-Mart. Even to this day, working at Frager's is a career. It pays a living wage, unlike Wal-MArt.

And your statement about protectionism is seriously backwards and uninformed. It is not possible for the U.S. to be a protectionist country. The average U.S. tariff is about 3%. We are a driver of the WTO, which opened up trade globally. Opposition to the TPP is not about protectionism, and you show your ignorance of the 30 chapter deal by using such ad hominem, 18th Century attacks on fair traders.

The TPP actually contains protectionism, particularly in the areas of pharmaceutical monopoly rights. It actually keep markets closed for generic meds by extending patent rights and market exclusivity rights. This is called protectionism. It also contains "protections" for the U.S. financial services industry by restricting the types of financial services regulations TPP members can enact. It also "protects" big ag by limiting the kind of food safety rules TPP countries can enact, locking in the use of certain food additives that we may later find out are really dangerous.

Worst of all, the TPP gives powerful private justice rules and systems to global firms like Wal-Mart. This diminishes our democracy and our ability to make economic choices for ourselves and to reject economic rules that simply aren't working because foreign companies will sue in private tribunals when we try to enact progressive change.

Wal-Mart's power should not be locked in via the TPP, and saying this isn't "protectionist." If you want to learn more about the TPP, read this: http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/174701/4156463/LAC+Report--Final+12-2-15+As+Adopted.pdf

If you'd rather to continue to misconstrue TPP opposition as protectionism, go right ahead, but note that your argument is not based in reality.

[creeksneakers2]

142. If Walmart doesn't cause food stamps

then I don't see why their business model is any worse than the rest of the large segment of employers who also have employees on food stamps. One in seven Americans are on food stamps. If there were no food stamps I don't see what would make Walmart pay more. People work for what they can get. Many places in the world they work for less than it costs to eat regularly. I'm glad we have food stamps.

Naming one business that pays good wages doesn't make my statement 100% wrong. I know from life experience that mom and pop stores pay very little.

I think convenience is a big reason while Walmart has come to dominate markets.

I'm sorry you took my use of the word protectionist as an attack. I took your opposition to globalism as an opposition to trade. My bad. I agree with you that we shouldn't sign bad trade deals. You are right that I don't know much about TPP. Thanks for the new link about it. Although I'm skeptical of the objectivity of the AFLCIO I hope to learn more from it. I learned about flaws in Walmart's supply system from you.

I don't think of patent protection as protectionism. We have patents for good reasons and US companies lose when patents aren't complied with. I won't agree with the TPP is it extends patents beyond what is given here. I also don't agree with the tribunals though I'm not sure they go as far as critics claim. We were told that NAFTA would end our world that way and it didn't happen. Perhaps after reading I'll be more convinced.

[Blackjackdavey]

143. Global democracy

As someone who campaigned hard against NAFTA, knocking on hundreds of doors giving hundreds of mini speeches against its passage, I want to say, I can see the other side. There is a democratic component to the spread of paying jobs to third world nations. While these trade agreements certainly support the lowest common denominators and are damaging to our economy in the short term at least, if these trade deals are indeed coming to pass, as they appear to be, the way forward is as you suggest -- fighting for global worker's rights. Corporations are simply chasing the lowest wages possible -- over time, at each stop along the way, if worker's become empowered, eventually we may circle back to stable wages, worldwide

[OrwellwasRight]

144. Workers do not become empowered by working in sweatshops though

Labor repression is actually worse in Mexico and Central America now than before NAFTA and CAFTA. Rising GDP doesn't lead to worker empowerment. If it did, 16th Century Spain would have been the most democratic , equitable country in the history of the world. It's political rights people need to climb the ladder of equality and giving global corporations tools like ISDS to blackmail countries into repealing progressive ideas actually prevents or delays such change.

[Blackjackdavey]

145. I agree with you

I agree with you. Speaking for myself, I struggle with the two sides of this coin. On one hand , as an American dad with two kids just now entering the work force I want nothing more than an abundance of quality opportunities for them right here in America and that is absolutely worth fighting for.

On the other hand, as a citizen of the world and progressive, I can see how globalization can increase the standard of living in other, less well off places. But that doesn't happen automatically, as you pointed out. These trade agreements are designed for maximum exploitation of resources and workers. Therefore, if these trade agreements are indeed inevitable and what the future holds, we need to take the fight overseas. Workers in third world factories need to organize and fight the way workers did here and in other industrialized nations a century or so ago -- the difference this time around is there are many people experienced in that struggle who can help.

With that said, as the battle over trade agreements continues, and as long as a path to victory seems apparent, let's keep fighting here; but eventually, for our wages and standard of living to make a come back, we are going to have to help the workers there.

[OrwellwasRight]

153. Yes, and that is what we are doing.

The labor movements of virtually every TPP country oppose the TPP. They don't believe that sweatshops are empowering either. They aren't fooled by business talking points that somehow rising wealth is automatically shared. Trade deals not only don't guarantee political rights, they actually in many cases undermine them, particularly when they make corporations more powerful through ISDS and intellectual property monopolies. This is not a nationalist movement, it is a global people's movement. Look up organizations like Derechos Digitales, Third World Network, South Centre, and the International Trade Union Confederation. You will see massive international cooperation against TPP and neoliberal, corporate power trade.

[GulfCoast66]

154. Thank you so much

I am too lazy to make such a post but totally agree.

I just spent a month in China. The days of really cheap products from them is almost over if not already over. They are insisting on a lifestyle like we have. And we actually are more efficient on an equal basis. I now know that we do have a crazy work ethic!

I think the key is insisting on strong unions and a European style safety net. And taxes on all Americans necessary to provide said benefits. In a progressive way, of course. In other words, social democracy, not socialism.

[OwlinAZ]

151. Which does not mean

that you are wrong and they are right.

[phazed0]

2. So now, when I post on DU the FACT that the Democrats

are for the TPP and everything that is included with that.. I expect my post to NOT be hidden. Thanks for accepting facts, supporters of the TPP.

Fucking travesty this is. When the revolution happens, don't be surprised.

[pampango]

4. Why would that be hidden. Polls all show more support for TPP from the Democratic base than

from the republican base.

It is weird that would get hidden. People can disagree or discuss but hide it?

[phazed0]

5. Try making a post that deals negatively/Corporatist charges against the Nominee..

No matter how fact based.

[pampango]

8. I misunderstood.

... when I post on DU the FACT that the Democrats are for the TPP and everything that is included with that.. I expect my post to NOT be hidden. Thanks for accepting facts, supporters of the TPP.

I did not understand that you were talking about Clinton. I thought it was "Democrats" in general.

[TwilightZone]

14. No, you understood correctly.

"when I post on DU the FACT that the Democrats are for the TPP"

...is pretty clearly referring to more than just Hillary Clinton.

[hollysmom]

52. well not all democrats,

This is no great surprise to me, can we have an idea on who voted for it to be included (chuck schumer, D W-S)
all the democrats I know personally in real life, not on-line or in office, are against it.

[TwilightZone]

13. Not including it in the platform is not the same as "all Democrats are for it".

This isn't complicated.

[bjobotts]

16. I know of no democrat who is for the TPP except the DLC members and Obama.

[phazed0]

17. Hillary refers to it as "The Gold Standard" and has advocated heavily for it. nt

[Duval]

46. Yes, I know. nt

[840high]

42. Thank you. k/r

[ReRe]

79. When we first got wind of...

... the TPP trade deal, there were NO Democrats in favor of it. If you will remember correctly, only Republicans supported it. Obama and Republicans, like you said. As far as I know, they still do. And now, as if by magic, certain Democrats all over the place like it too. Beats me, bjobotts. They have to be young people, who were too young when a former Pres. signed NAFTA and GATT trade treaties in 1993.

[Recursion]

112. Ron Wyden, for one

Most people from coastal states will be for it.

[Silver_Witch]

127. Clearly many democrats on DU are. This is the third posting a few days!

One post "explained" to us how wonderful it is and how we are all just to simple to understand. Mark my words this thing will pass. Hillary calls it the gold standard and President Obama thinks it is wonderful!

I truly like the President on these one we disagreed though!

[Jester Messiah]

101. I think if we've learned anything this cycle, it's that this is not a progressive party.

It's a very moderate party, maybe-kinda-sorta-left-leaning on alternate Tuesdays. Those who want to see real progress towards reigning in corporations or establishing health care for all, things like that... aren't going to be catered to. That's just the way it is now.

[davidthegnome]

3. I wonder how many democrats currently in office...

Actually support the TPP. Would be interesting to find out - if someone hasn't already done this.

This is a very... disappointing decision - and I hope it is not a sign of things to come. From what little I understand of the TPP, it seems pretty disastrous. Never quite understood why Obama supported it to begin with - still don't.

[awoke_in_2003]

26. I'd wager most

though they might not admit it. The only reason it hasn't passed is because Obama wants it, which means the pukes must vote against it.

[think]

57. Obama and Republicans Agree on the Trans-Pacific Partnership … Unfortunately

Obama and Republicans Agree on the Trans-Pacific Partnership … Unfortunately

Mark Bittman APRIL 22, 2015

There’s an important issue out there you may never have heard of, which is just what its proponents would like. That’s the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), currently being pushed by the Obama administration and its corporate (and mostly Republican!) allies. It’s a blatant attack on labor, farmers, food safety, public health and even national sovereignty.

And the details of the deal are largely secret. Other than what’s been leaked, the public has no access to its contents, and even members of Congress don’t know much. (On the other hand, “cleared advisers,” mostly corporate lawyers, have full access.) That’s because the TPP is way too important to its sponsors to allow little details like congressional or public input to get in its way, even though constitutional authority over trade is granted to the legislative, not the executive, branch.

This is a bipartisan effort if ever there was one; George Will has called the TPP “Obama’s best idea.” Thus we see the administration, along with pro-business Democrats and Republicans, trying to bulletproof the deal. Last week, a bill was introduced that would give the president “fast-track authority” on the TPP. If that passes, Congress could vote only up or down on the deal, not amend it. That’s quite a bit of presidential power for a scheme that would have a striking impact on the global economy — and the food on our table.

The TPP is little more than enhanced corporation power branded as free trade. It gives corporations the right to challenge government regulations and seek compensation if they think they’ve been treated unfairly by any of the 12 Pacific Rim nations in the deal. (China is currently, but not necessarily permanently, excluded; part of the thinking behind the TPP is to lock up an agreement with these partners before China does.)...

Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/opinion/obama-and-republicans-agree-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-unfortunately.html

[okasha]

60. This article is a year out of date.

The text is not "secret." It was released in January and is available online.

[think]

67. The Republicans are supportive of the TPP and always have been. That's what is important

about the article. Just like NAFTA where Bill Clinton and the majority of the a GOP were for it over the majority of the Democrats on congress...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/09/history-lesson-more-republicans-than-democrats-supported-nafta/

[okasha]

82. The article misrepresents the current situation

with the agreement. Whether or not the Republicans like a thing is irrelevant to judging its merits. The TPP is a very mixed bag, and it needs more work, but it does include a much-needed renegotiation of NAFTA.

[think]

84. The claim above was that the GOP was against the TPP and that's NEVER been true.

And the TPP is still just a corporate deal written by the corporations for the corporations.

Labor's So-Called "Seat at the Table" at TPP Negotiations

~Snip~

The TPP, like many of the failed trade agreements that came before it, will cover issues including health, food safety, conservation and environmental protections, Wall Street regulations, labor rights, and a whole host of other issues that, under our system of government, would have to be debated publicly in Congress before becoming law. But because the U.S. government treats trade deals differently than all other policies—it is allowed to negotiate rules that affect our lives in these areas behind closed doors. This is undemocratic.

I’ve heard “labor” has a seat at the table and gets to see the TPP texts. Is this true?

No. Under U.S. law, there are several trade advisers—private citizens appointed by the President—who advise on trade policies. Of these advisers, the vast majority (85% according to the Washington Post) represent businesses. About 5% of the advisers represent labor. The other 10% represent local and state government officials, academics, think tanks and non-governmental organizations. Labor advisers are allowed to review and advise on draft U.S. proposals—advice that the United States Trade Representative (USTR) can freely ignore. But we are locked out of the negotiating room and cannot see the actual negotiating texts, which combine the proposals from all 12 countries and evolve over time as negotiations progress. Nor can we share what we learn with members without violating national security laws.

I’ve heard USTR say the AFL-CIO is satisfied with the level of transparency in the TPP negotiations. Is this true?

No. We have been pushing not just for more transparency, but for a more democratic and participatory process since the beginning. The USTR has quoted selectively from AFL-CIO testimony about the TPP provided to Congress three years ago, when the TPP was still taking shape. At that time, we were very hopeful that our ideas for a more progressive trade agenda would be adopted into the TPP. Here is the entire quote in context:


http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Fast-Track-Legislation/Labor-s-So-Called-Seat-at-the-Table-at-TPP-Negotiations

[okasha]

85. The original out-of-date article

made several claims that are not now true, eg., that the TPP is secret.

That was my point. If you're going to comment on an evolving situation, keep current with it. Do not misrepresent it.

[think]

87. The TPP was CREATED in secret. Was it not? It still sucks and the Pukes are still all in favor of it

I misrepresented NOTHING. The dates were clear enough that you just keep making that the issue rather than the actual events surrounding it which are what matters.

The OP was claiming that Pugs were against the TPP. The article was posted to show that NO they were for it all along. People can read and understand the article is from last year but that the GOP was more than happy to support it even then.

It's shitty corporate made law for corporations. The GOP loves it. The unions don't.

Many Democrats also don't like it also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/18/top-house-democrat-on-trade-opposes-trans-pacific-partnership/

[okasha]

88. Most governmental documents remain confidential until completed.

Are you distraught that negotiations with Iran for the nuclear treaty were't tweeted hourly?

The finished text of the TPP is available in full online, for anyone to read who wants to. Might be a good idea to do so before issuing sweeping condemnations.

[think]

89. The unions were shut out and made their complaints known. You choose to ignore that fact

good bye...

[okasha]

90. Ta.

[reACTIONary]

93. Exactly ! +10!

[libdem4life]

107. Oh please, this is a serious discussion of American jobs.

Snark and hubris not appreciated.

[okasha]

108. Oh, please,

just sharing some serious information about American jobs.

Any serious discussion has to start with facts, not propaganda.

[libdem4life]

109. I see little offered towards that effect.

"Are you distraught that negotiations with Iran for the nuclear treaty were't tweeted hourly? "

[okasha]

110. It's called reductio ad absurdum.

Not that claiming the TPP remains a secret document isn't absurd on its own.

[pampango]

123. republican politicians, (except Trump) yes. republican voters are against it more than Democratic

voters. The republican base has always been more opposed to every trade agreement and the WTO than the Democratic base.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. Trade is vital to our economy. Isolationism is not an option

However, the agreement matters. Knee-jerk reactions opposing all trade deals hurt America. We just need to get the trade deals right.

[tom_kelly]

19. A Secret Trade Deal

Democrats tried to push a SECRET trade deal. Now that we're learning more about it and how it sucks, they're still pushing it.

[reACTIONary]

97. FYI, here is the full text...,..

.... of the secret trade deal. You can learn more about it simply by reading it.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

[bjobotts]

21. Nonsense.All other countries have protectionist trade policies but this one.Are you a troll?

That's how we lost our factories. We use to be the number one exporter of finished goods but are now the number one importer of finished goods. Our number one export is gasoline/oil. Why. Trade policies instead of tariffs and tax incentives to keep manufacturing here at home. Anytime a trade deal is kept private and members of congress are not allowed to discuss it or publish its parts it's because it is so reprehensible and one sided that creators know it would be denied so sshhh. That's the TPP and you should have a knee jerk reaction when people are being that sneaky and secretive.

[hollysmom]

53. this bill only protects corporations, real people be damned.

It has already been shown to increase the cost of Pharma and they never enforce the labor rules - here is a hint for you, when you put together a trade plan that only included corporations and leaves environmentalists out and labor out and pretty much anyone you would want in on it, well, guess who it will favor.

[reACTIONary]

96. Herecis the full text of the so called....

.... "secretive trade deal". Every word, jot and titel.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

[ReRe]

58. Total isolationism is not good...

... just as total globalization is not good.

Every time someone has the nerve to lift their voice against this dog-eat-dog capitalistic casino market globalization, The Corporation sends out someone to cry
"Isolationism! isolationism! isolationism! "

In the UK, at least they allow their citizens a "referendum" vote. In the USA, the citizens don't even know the definition of the term "referendum." (Sorry, California, this does not include your state referendums.) The only way we have to vote against Trade deals or large projects that will change the world as we know it to our peril, is to vote for which ever party supports our way of thinking per that project.

Thus, the current dilemma: Shit! Both parties are FOR the TPP Trade Agreements! Both parties are for a secret Corporate deal which takes our jobs and ships them abroad; it's so secret that it can NOT be debated on the floors of Congress, etc, etc, etc.

What could go wrong?

I say throw out politics and get a different economic system. No more "all one kind fits all" capitalism. I don't know what that would be, but there's plenty of economist folks that could sit at the table and make some suggestions. We could keep some of what was good about basic capitalism (if there ever was anything good about it, except of course Main St Mom & Pop stores), and we could add in other systems, like Socialism and Old Fashioned Democracy (complete with paper hand counted voting!)

[Evergreen Emerald]

75. I think we all agree: trade is good, it just needs to have protections

But to automatically attack all trade is not a learned stance. For example one of the issues for trade is that products designed and patented by Americans--are stolen easily and daily by other countries with no regard for the patent. There are a number of issues that can protect Americans --workers, inventors, business.

This is a global world. So when I hear people saying that trade is bad, it appears to be an uneducated, knee jerk belief.

[reACTIONary]

95. +100 !! X 2

[turbinetree]

100. Let me give you a prime example of trade------------------

have you ever heard of the glass cockpit, or how about the production line of an Aircraft maker, Iron ore, better yet, how about maintenance on said aircraft that you ride around in when you travel.

Did you know, I am assuming you don't, and the thousand of readers on this thread, that the heavy maintenance checks C& D checks, are being performed in some countries like China, Mexico, Brazil, because the first thing that comes out from this "trade deal is aircraft maintenance costs, they pit the costs of a FAA certificated American worker against the foreign country worker, and we lose, and the corporation want to expand this practice, and the FAA can't keep up with the inspections, because good old right wing congress wants to privatize the agency and go around and say see its a failure, the only reason why it hasn't been implemented is because of Bill Nelson, and the military, because they do fly in commercial space.

And please don't tell me about the privatization of the European air traffic controllers, that system in my humble opinion is wrong, the transparency isn't there until after the fact.

All you have to have is one, yes one, person that can read and understand the English language and have a Airframe and Powerplant certificate and they get to sign off all the work on that American Flag Carrier having its work being performed by non-certificated people, in that particular country, because of "trade deals" and the associated costs.
But the American public don't care, they are only concerned about the plane ticket, and if its going to on time.

The glass cockpit another favorite of mine, China told the manufactures of Boeing and Airbus, that if they "want" to sell aircraft in that communist country, they had to put up a production line----------------so Airbus goes and puts up a production line to build the A320 series aircraft, I have to admit that they put a production line in Mississippi, but it was done because of the French costs.

Boeing on the other hand had to give proprietary information of the glass cockpit with the help of Rockwell Collins to be made in that country, so the Chinese then found out how to equip there fighter jets with reverse engineering --nice huh, now they do fly-by's against surveillance aircraft, and they have figured out how to make a stealth fighter by reverse engineering, remember that drone that was shot down over Iran, the radar system and the material made for the aircraft drone, and they passed onto the Chinese and the Russian, better yet when the F-117 was shot down during the Kosovo War, that information was passed onto the highest bidder.

Boeing had to give to Kawasaki Heavy Industries the job of producing the wing of the new 777-X, why, because the US has outsourced the machinists jobs and the factory, and the technology, because Japan said that if you want us to buy your aircraft you have to give us jobs.

Have you gone into the Iron Range of Minnesota, see what happens when you have iron ore coming in from Norway or South Korea, better yet take the Oakland Bay Bridge--------------it is now has structural problems because the steel was imported from China, there are hair line cracks developing because they use a hardening process that is flawed, but a right wing governor by the name of Arnold, didn't even put the bid out to an American company, because of costs, with association of steel factories shutting down against foreign dumping practices, got to love that CAFTA or the South Korean "trade deal".

Do you know why there are NO ships being built in this country, unless its military attack submarines, take a hard look at that industry, they are being built in other countries because this country let that vital industry die, because of costs

The outsourcing of maintenance on aircraft to and for some third party in some foreign country is wrong, because the issue is that the american worker is being directly challenged by the low cost of the country, that is a simple fact.

So in my response to your question, I am highly trained and educated, but a lot of people don't care, I am forced to hear about a "trade deal" after the fact, and I am told to be ashamed if I gripe about "trade deals", I think, I have a right to gripe, along with the 65 thousand plants that have been shut down in this country, and the millions of Americans that have lost there jobs---------------------there middle class jobs, and Union jobs, because of "trade deals"


Honk---------------------for a political revolution

[Evergreen Emerald]

103. This is exactly why, if we do not create parameters, we lose. n/t

[turbinetree]

136. We have already lost, we are told that we have protections in every "trade deal"------------------

this is absolutely absurd, we do not have a tariff protections from the good's coming in, prime example is Wal Mart, Boeing, Rockwell Collins, Vietnam, Singapore and anyone else in the pipe line of corporations and the oligarchy mentality they generate from and with these "trade deals" , pitting one country against another because of "trade deals."

Boeing and Airbus for example was told from the India government if you want to sale your product, we want your information and we will build it, and if you don't want to do this will go to let's say Sweden or Russia.

Think of which countries are in talks for the replacement of the T-38 Air Force trainer, Brazil, Korea for example

This country was told that the importation of steel would have protections, --------right--------I got a bridge for sale in Oakland, made with cheap steel from China and whoever it was brought from, and now the taxpayers of that state are going to be left holding the bag, along with the general taxpayers in this country to fix the problem--------------just because of "trade deals" and costs.

They, the United Steel workers had to file a claim against the South Korean government and the manufactures and other manufactures of steel, because they were dumping the steel, that claim sat there in the WTO, and in this country for over three years, waiting and continue to wait for a ruling, mean while back at this sold out ranch, this country was shutting down steel plants, because the United Steel Workers and there company had to wait for a ruling, the WTO another infamous organization that was established in the 1990's along with NAFTA for over three plus years, so while that was happening the above country was depressing the price of steel, so good old China, Korea, Norway and god knows who else saw an opening in the "trade deals" and then this country gets not one two more "trade deals" oh boy-----------CAFTA and the South Korean Accord, because of the worthless tariffs this country has on imported goods, the economics of the tariffs in this country are a joke.


In the communist greed, they ship their iron ore from Chile and Australian, manufacture it, so that they can go on a rampage of building of empty cities that are unoccupied, but good old wall street sees what, the GDP factors that's all they look at, the Chinese dollars being pitted against the US dollar and the GDP and any other currency in this world. There is a big reason why China is establishing a foot hold in Africa, minerals and the relationship of governments while this country does exactly what?

Sit back and think about that for a minute, they go into a country take the product, process it in there country, and then sell it out at a discounted price unto the market, because they have communist government unions, and the wages in the country are doled out to cronies, and then they continue this manipulation of there currency against this country, just like Korea does when it comes to steel and many others to prop up there country up, that is just that, prop up-----------we the American worker cannot compete against the machine.

What is really glaring is how many US automobile manufactures are there in lets say Japan, India, England, China, Sweden, France, because if there is any, they come and plant themselves in Non-Union States, just to not pay there country associated costs, because this labor force is being exploited against another country

So in summation we have companies in this country, politicians falling all over themselves to sell this country out, lets have another "trade deal" called TPP.

Hell, some country owns the Waldorf Astoria in New York (the Chinese), next up, the national parks, John McCain and his buddy in Arizona just sold the mineral rights away, because hypocrites like him bankrupt the country and then blame me and you for there inept and outright contempt of being beholden to the corruption of being bought off.



Have a nice day

Honk-----------------for a political revolution

[ancianita]

133. Fucking awesome answer. Heavy understanding of cutthroat capitalism and how we get

what we pay for, externalized costs conveniently overlooked by greedy hacks.

A thousand thanks for your sharing here.

[turbinetree]

137. All we have to do is look under the blanket and see what is happening around ------------------

this world every day.

Everyone is affected and sees the outcome, right or wrong. But usually greed wins


Thank you for the compliment it is appreciated, I see the costs and the issue from the aviation side, this one "trade deals" is not talked about until someone says, hey think about this ---------------------The pilots in this country are just waiting for the other shoe to drop because of "cabotage".

cab·o·tage
ˈkabəˌtäZH,-bətij/Submit
noun
the right to operate sea, air, or other transport services within a particular territory.
restriction of the operation of sea, air, or other transport services within or into a particular country to that country's own transport services.

Norwegian Air is going to start flying from Europe to this country, they have a business model, where they want to fly from New York to Miami for example, under the Norwegian Air certificate coming out of Ireland, where they are registered.

Aircraft Maintenance is not included in the open skies agreements, again, people just look at the price of the ticket------------they really could care less, until its there job




Honk----------------for a political revolution

[ancianita]

140. Keep talking! I'm listening and so are hundreds of others!

I've already been jittery while flying for years, knowing that I'm flying over oceans and continents in a can made by the lowest bidders.

Pride in quality materials, professional skills and craftsmanship need to be fought for over these deals. Of course, people elsewhere need jobs and improved quality of life, but not at the expense of end users who have to further invest in insurance. This fighting for scraps in the monopolists' austerity game has got to be turned back on them.

[turbinetree]

152. Agreed

[reACTIONary]

94. +100 !!

[OrwellwasRight]

141. What is knee jerk is calling opposition to TPP

"isolationism." Please tell me which TPP opponent is arguing for isolationism?

The AFL-CIO? http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/174701/4156463/LAC+Report--Final+12-2-15+As+Adopted.pdf
The Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership
Public Citizen: http://www.citizen.org/more-about-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

Or is this just unsubstantiated rhetoric that you are repeating because the President said it and you think it sounds informed?

Your name-calling is not informed. We are not arguing for "isolation." If we were, why would the AFL-CIO testify ON BEHALF OF a ten year extension of the AGOA program, which provides one-way tariff preferences to developing countries of Africa? AGOA brings more duty-free imports to the US without requiring Africans countries to lower their tariffs on US exports to them.

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/042315_Feingold_Testimony.pdf

Why would the AFL-CIO work with Colombian trade unionists to defend their rights is labor unions were isolationist?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/16/reuters-america-update-1-colombia-not-enforcing-us-trade-deal-labor-standards-unions.html

This is the opposite of isolation, but keep calling names and feeling superior. That helps build dialogue and understanding. NOT.

[Trajan]

9. The real question about TPP ...

Why are Democrats so damned gung ho about TPP?

In Oregon, Earl Blumenour, Suzanne Bonamici, Kurt Schroeder, and RON WYDEN - all support TPP ...

WTF? ... What has happened to the party of FDR?

[babylonsister]

11. Could they know something we don't? nt

[sheshe2]

32. Please do not accuse and broadbrush

Democrats of accepting bribes.

It is against our rules here. You know that.

I won't alert yet I would ask you to please stop.

[w4rma]

35. Then what why else would they be supporting an unpopular trade deal that hands over sovereignty to

the multinationals and the billionaires that own them?

Anyway, they're "bribes", now. Legal "bribes" that used to be illegal bribes.

[sheshe2]

37. Do what you want.

Since you have read the entire trade deal. Please enlighten the rest of us.

I am not a lawyer, please explain it to us in layman's terms. And I would appreciate links to the facts, not just your opinion.

TIA

[creeksneakers2]

56. I don't support turning over sovereignty

But they claimed that was going to happen with NAFTA and it didn't. There were 17 cases filed against the US from the NAFTA provision and the US won all 17.

I've read that the language in TPP is stronger and would make it harder for the US to win cases. I don't know who to believe now.

I, like many mainstream Democrats, support free trade in general. It keeps prices down. Even though there are sacrifices those sacrifices are necessary. If we don't compete in the world economy we'll be left behind. Our children would end up much worse off.

Nobody bribed me.

[reACTIONary]

98. +100 !!

[That Guy 888]

63. How to line their pockets without appearing corrupt? nt

[pampango]

12. "What has happened to the party of FDR?" FDR originated the multi-country trade organization but

we have abandoned FDR's commitment to high/progressive taxes, legal support for strong unions and a strong safety net.

[Trajan]

20. Trade agreements aren't inherently bad

Trade agreements written by corporate overlords is almost ALWAYS bad ...

[pampango]

24. Well said. There are good trade agreements and bad ones, just like there are good climate agreements

and bad ones, good peace treaties and bad ones, etc.

[Trajan]

27. . . .

[Akicita]

91. Bad for who? Not the corporate overlords. The rest of us don't count.

[awoke_in_2003]

28. Because voting for it

means they get a cushy lobbiest job when they leave office.

[ReRe]

59. They've been...

... "going along to get along" way too long. So long that they forgot about compromising those silly principles so long ago. Maybe they can't believe that their loyal opposition would be leading them so astray? Maybe it's pure unadulterated gullibility?

We need Democrats who are fearless, ones who are not easily intimidated, ones who are totally, uncompromisingly dedicated to the people, as opposed the The Corporation.

It didn't say "We the Corporation", it said "We the People..." As a matter of fact, does the Constitution mention the word "corporation" anywhere?

[Recursion]

113. They disagree with you about the impact of trade

Frankly, I agree with them because the numbers seem to back them up.

This isn't a conspiracy, it's a factual disagreement, and they think you're wrong. And you think they're wrong.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Sad. Wish the proposal had passed.

[TheProgressive]

18. Maybe this new Dem Party can change their name...

Like, ThirdWay or something like that.

What an insult to the FDR/JFK/LBJ progressive normal people's Democratic Party...

[bjobotts]

23. Like the DLC's Money Party

Democratic Leadership Council or Wall street lobbyists.

[Firebrand Gary]

36. Why can't you wait to see the entire platform before reverting to that label used in the primaries?

[hollysmom]

54. well this was part of the primaries where BOTH candidates were agains the TPP if you don't remember.

[CharlotteVale]

40. +1

[pampango]

124. FDR invented the multi-country trade agreement (ITO). republicans defeated it. JFK - Trade Expansion

Act of 1962 granted the White House unprecedented authority to negotiate tariff reductions of up to 50%. It paved the way for the Kennedy Round of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT&quot negotiations, concluding on June 30, 1967 ... . It is one aspect for which the John F. Kennedy administration was known.

LBJ - negotiated and signed the Kennedy Round of GATT.

The Kennedy Round was the sixth session of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) trade negotiations held between 1964 and 1967 in Geneva, Switzerland. Congressional passage of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act in 1962 authorized the White House to conduct mutual tariff negotiations, ultimately leading to the Kennedy Round. Participation greatly increased over previous rounds. Sixty-six nations, representing 80% of world trade, attended the official opening on May 4, 1964, at the Palais des Nations. Despite several disagreements over details, the director general announced the round’s success on May 15, 1967, and the final agreement was signed on June 30, 1967 ... . The round was named after U.S. President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated six months before the opening negotiations.

The main objectives of the Kennedy Round were to:

Slash tariffs by half with a minimum of exceptions
Break down farm trade restrictions
Remove non-tariff barriers
Help developing countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Round

Like it or not, TPP is very much a continuation of FDR/JFK/LBJ's Democratic Party. They all cut tariffs and expanded trade.

You have to go back to Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover (from 1921 to 1933) as the last American presidents who raised tariffs and restricted trade.

[TheProgressive]

129. Is this the latest from the Third Way Democrats?

That Act was a bill that was processed normally by Congress, the President, and real news agencies.

The TPP is more than a 'trade bill' - it is a worldwide corporate takeover of American sovereignty and people's rights. We the People cannot even read it - it is secret. Our Constitution made it clear about Treaties. So, when the Treaty language is bypassed - that is coup de'tat.

There is no defending the TPP.

[pampango]

132. TPP is more like the concept of the ITO - a multi-country trade agreement with

labor and business regulation standards enforced by an independent arbitration process. The specifics of TPP and ITO differ, of course, but the concepts are similar.

JFK's Tariff Act of 1962 merely reduced tariffs as had FDR's Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934. LBJ negotiated the Kennedy Round in GATT which concluded in 1967.

I was responding to a post that the modern Democratic Party trade policy is "an insult to the FDR/JFK/LBJ progressive normal people's Democratic Party". I thought the actual trade policies of FDR, JFK and LJB might be relevant.

[Sienna86]

25. This is beginning to sound like a club I don't want to belong to anymore.

I'm very disappointed. First voting down the $15 living wage, then this?

[nashville_brook]

29. um...that happened?

jeez.

ain't that a kick in the pants.

[rickford66]

30. Another step to the right.

[swhisper1]

31. Number 2

corporate 2, people 0

[ananda]

33. They have vested interests in the TPP.

Anyhow, that's a real shame.

Where's Sanders on this travesty?

[Recursion]

115. Sanders and Clinton have both come out against the TPP, which disappoints me

I'm not ecstatic with it (we could have pushed Vietnam harder, and Brunei) but I think they're both just kind of following the crowd here rather than actually doing what's best for the country.

I really liked O'Malley's proposals (surprise, surprise) which were to replace the ISDS system with a self-funded trade insurance system sort of like the Ex-Im.

[nikto]

34. OK, so in order to avoid electing a psycho-ignoramus as President, I have to VOTE FOR TPP?

I could never vote for Trump.

But his stand is better than Hillary's on this issue.



I oppose TPP, TTIP and Global Capitalism in general,
because all those things are undemocratic, oligarchic, out-of-balance,
and entirely UN-EQUITABLE.





My vote for Hillary will be a vote AGAINST TRUMP,
and absolutely not a vote FOR TPP, TTIP, Global Capitalism, unregulated bank$ and Corps,
an aggressive, corporate-driven, Neocon foreign policy, more fracking, more Charter schools
to rip-off US Public Schools, cutting Medicare or SS, maintaining a for-profit healthcare system,
or supporting a for-profit prison system.

No s__t.

[geek tragedy]

38. President's party doesn't pick fight with him, real shocking. nt

[TwilightZone]

49. lol, no kidding

This isn't a big surprise.

[hay rick]

39. This could be the gold standard of Democratic platforms.

[840high]

44. Ah yes...

Wish I had a picture of a screw.

[MisterP]

43. yes, this stance is sure to defeat a bigmouth populist a few months after a surprise Brexit!

[cheapdate]

45. There's legitimate disagreement over this.

Last edited Fri Jun 24, 2016, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm opposed to trade deals that export American-style capitalism abroad to smaller, weaker countries. It's just state cover for American corporations to steal resources from them.

But I'm fully aware that not everyone is where I'm at.

[Duval]

48. Well, I'm right there with you, cheapdate.

And I'm sure others are also.

[cheapdate]

50. Thanks!

[nikto]

65. Nicely summed-up ------ Me, too!

Wut U Said.

[4dsc]

47. Corporate democrats for sure

This is why we still need Bernie. This is BS.

[hollowdweller]

51. Trump will be making some hay over this one.

Oh Democrats! Please be democrats!

[TomCADem]

61. Good Move Not To Adopt Knee Jerk Anti-Trade Platform

It is one thing to demand that a trade agreement have certain terms and conditions relating to protecting workers or the environment, but to categorically oppose any trade deals with Pacific Rim parties seems a bit xenophobic.

[That Guy 888]

64. What trade deals have we had that protected workers and the environment?

Our multinational corporations are looking for profits, not kumbaya moments of unity. Our leaders want to isolate China with the TPP, is that xenophobia or geopolitics.

[Recursion]

114. NAFTA, CAFTA, all of them since 1994 really

The TPP will institute a minimum wage in countries that have never had one, and require a raise of the minimum wage in others, and require every signatory to allow unions to elect their own officers and affiliate internationally.

Hell, AFL keeps suing foreign countries in these "trade courts" everybody freaks out about, and winning. You'd think people would notice.

[That Guy 888]

122. They've been shit for the environment, and don't stop abuse including murder of labor organizers

Being on a border state, I can tell you that the factory zones created just across the border had no infrastructure, and no environmental regulations. When they first relocated there was an epidemic of children born without brains. As far as labor rights go, there is NO ENFORCEMENT. IfWhen labor rights are violated really the only sort of enforcement is from consumers, which isn't enough for the people crushed by corporate/government mercenaries.

When you look at trade deals from far, far, far away, it's easy to just assume that everything's rosy.

"Hell, AFL keeps suing foreign countries in these "trade courts" everybody freaks out about, and winning."

They're suing because our government is not and has not. Our government under both republicans and "New" Democrats, have allowed massive product dumping that has destroyed our manufacturing base. Those same "trade courts" allow multinational corporations to sue for losses due to environmental laws and overturn the sovereignty of the citizens of the country sued.

Conclusion

Absent reforms to the proposed CAFTA labor rights provisions along the lines recommended above, Central American countries will have no reason under CAFTA to strengthen their deficient labor laws and little incentive to improve their practices. They could end up enjoying ever-greater tariff benefits, while the abuse of Central American workers’ human rights persists. Instead, CAFTA should include strong, enforceable labor rights protections to create a free trade area in which the rights of workers producing goods for export are upheld.

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/cafta1003.htm

NAFTA’s Broken Promises 1994-2013: Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement
In 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold to the American public with grand promises. NAFTA would create tens of thousands of good jobs here. U.S. farmers would export their way to wealth. NAFTA would bring Mexico’s standard of living up, providing new economic opportunities there that would reduce immigration to the United States.

NAFTA was an experiment, establishing a radically new “trade” agreement model. It exploded the boundaries of past trade pacts, which had focused narrowly oncutting tariffs and quotas. In contrast, NAFTA contained chapters that created new privileges and protections for foreign investors; required the three countries to waive domestic procurement preferences, such as Buy American; limited regulation of services, such as trucking and banking; extended medicine patent monopolies and limited food and product safety standards and border inspection.

After nineteen years of NAFTA, we can measure its actual outcomes. The grand promises made by proponents remain unfulfilled. Many outcomes are exactly the opposite of what was promised. B[]Many U.S. firms used the new investor protections to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of its low wages and weak environmental standards and to attack NAFTA countries’ environmental and health laws in foreign tribunals. Over $340 million in compensation to investors has been extracted from NAFTA governments via these “investor-state” challenges.

The small U.S. trade surplus with Mexico pre-NAFTA turned into a massive new trade deficit. The pre-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada expanded greatly. Overall, the inflation - adjusted U.S. trade deficit with Canada of $29.1billion and the $2.5 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion by 2012.1 The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimated that the NAFTA deficit had eliminated about one million net American jobs by 2004.2 Meanwhile, U.S. food processors moved to Mexico to take advantage of low wages and food imports soared. U.S beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 130 percent since NAFTA took effect, and today U.S. consumption of “NAFTA” beef tops $1.3 billion annually.3 The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase,displacing over one million Mexican campesino farmers. Their desperate migration pushed down wages in Mexico’s border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises.pdf

[rpannier]

68. Nice Spin

Unless you can back up what you said with proof
And I don't mean, there are three people or some small organization that opposes any trade deal with the Pacific or anywhere else
Very few, if anyone, opposes trade deals
What many oppose, including me, are the deals that weaken our environmental regulations, that ship jobs out, that allow countries like Malaysia to be raised from a category 4 to category 3 weeks after finding hundreds of dead victims of human trafficking, that turns disputes over to a court that handles investor-state disputes that is not an American court.
If businesses, multi-national or small or whatever, wish to do business in countries with questionable governments they can buy insurance.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

62. Concerned about TPP ISDS process and government

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

[nikto]

66. Great info. Thanks!!

[cstanleytech]

92. Will depend what SCOTUS rules.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/tpp-isds-constitution/396389/ though mentioned it

The Supreme Court has not ruled on this precise question. But the collective reasoning in four of its recent rulings bearing on the issue leans heavily toward a finding of unconstitutionality. The Court has placed significant limits on the ability of Congress to assign the power to decide cases traditionally handled by the courts to people other than Article III judges, even when the judicial substitutes are full-time federal officials, such as bankruptcy judges or the heads of federal agencies. Moreover, in each case in which the Court approved of a dispute being taken away from federal judges, there was judicial review at the end of the process, which is not the case with TPP. Moreover, although the Justice Department issued a lengthy opinion in 1995 on when arbitration can be used to replace court adjudication, it did not then, and has not since then, defended the constitutionality of arbitration provisions like those in the proposed TPP.

[dembotoz]

69. in light of brexit the tpp smells somewhat like the eu....and lord know we just saw how that worked

so lets give the gop the hammer to hit us with

we really do not want to win in nov do we......

[Purveyor]

78. Right. Some need to buy a clue... eom

[freebrew]

86. I'll give you a quarter...nt.

[Bohemianwriter]

70. For democrats in Congress supporting TPP...

The consequence should be simple. Be primaried at the next crossroads for a more progressive representative who actually represents the people, and not just an inner circle of elitists, who does not have your best interests at heart.

[Recursion]

116. Ron Wyden is representing his constituents by supporting it

Oregon exports a lot, and transships a lot. How would this be bad for them?

[Bohemianwriter]

146. So in what way would TPP be good in any way..

Except for multinational corporations whose profit rights trumps local democracy?

Most people are against TPP, Hillary seem to not be able to agree with herself on the matter.

How has NAFTA been positive the last 20 years?

[Recursion]

147. A majority of Democrats support the TPP

How has NAFTA been positive the last 20 years?


Umm... given that unemployment fell, labor force participation rose, manufacturing output rose, and incomes and wages at every quintile rose after NAFTA's passage, maybe the better question is how has it been negative?

[Bohemianwriter]

148. Do you have a pol what shows the majority of the Democratic VOTER....

are in favor of TPP?

Do you even know what's in it without having to resort to "the majority supports selling out their democracy to corporate privileges?

How has NAFTA lead to a falling unemployment is beyond my comprehension since that was when lot's of jobs disappeared to China.

I think you confuse progressives democrats with corporate republiscammers. No progressive I know are i favor of TPP.

Only corporatists, and repubicans are in favor of TPP....

Only a small minority are in favor of money in politics where it would cost you 100 000 to sit next to the candidate at some event...

[Recursion]

149. Why did you mention China? Do do you think China has something to do with NAFTA?

Our trade with China is an example of what trade is like without a Free Trade Agreement. They'll never sign one with us because they would never agree to the labor protections it would require. So they get to do whatever the hell they want.

[dmosh42]

71. We favor our workers, but there's a limit!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

72. Workers don't pay big bucks to listen to speeches.

So screwm.

[dmosh42]

73. There ya go!

[Akicita]

99. We favor foreign workers for sure. Not so sure anymore about our workers.

[Indepatriot]

74. READY FOR HILLARY!!!!!

[Jester Messiah]

102. To do what, exactly...? n/t

[CrowCityDem]

76. Some are for it, some against it. The platform now says that. What's the problem?

[floriduck]

80. This is one more platform item that both candidates agreed on, right?

"which has been opposed by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders."

[IgelJames4]

83. what a letdown

It is quite evident that the Democratic Party has sold its soul to the 1%, and doesn't take the interests of the American worker into consideration. Shame.

[Hoyt]

104. Good. It would be a stupid move.

[Owl]

105. Shit.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

128. TPP and ISDS process and Democrats

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too.

[4dsc]

150. that's the DNC for you

What did all you corporate supporting democrats expect from the party elites.