Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/hillary-clinton-trade-deals-giant-sucking-sound.htmlUnderstandably, Hillary Clinton backtracked on NAFTA in 2008 (backtracked as a Democrat, I should say, to avoid the marital discord trope), but of course by then the damage was done.
...
A little time out. Now, Im not necessarily averse to politicians who backtrack from a policies that are against my values and interests (take that, Edmund Burke) but I would like to know that they dont then unbacktrack their backtracking, because that confuses my simple mind. And surely, as Secretary of State during Obamas first term, she would have been privy to the negotiation of future trade deals. So what does she think about them?
....
Here again it makes sense to look at Hillary has to say about trade deal in Hard Choices, the baseline she laid down if she should choose to run again. Here are the findings:
Rather thin, especially given Clintons focus on commerce at State. Youll notice, first, that oddly, or not, Clinton has nothing to say about NAFTA, unless the oblique reference to learned the hard way counts. And she has nothing to say about TTIP, TISA, or GATS. Heres what she has to say about TPP:
It makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement.
Well, no, it doesnt. First, if fast track passes Hard Choices has nothing to say about fast track, either TPP is a pig in a poke; pressure will be so immense to pass it that judgment will be hard to exercise; thats what fast track is for!
djean111
(14,255 posts)have another think coming, if/when the TPP is forced upon us) :
http://www.correntewire.com/slovakias_legal_battle_to_implement_single_payer_vs_special_corporate_rights_under_free_trade
Recap: Slovaks were fed up with the ever rising cost of health insurance, so in 2006, they elected a government that ran on a platform promising to limit the profits of the insurers and transition to single payer.
However, a previous government had- back in the 1990s, signed one of those (quite inappropriately named, we will see) "free trade agreements", which had the kinds of clauses which a lot of the others have too (in the US, going back to NAFTA and GATS) limiting what they could do. It created these new "rights" - under investor-state. If anything the country did adversely effected any multinational corporations business interests, the corporations "rights" came first!
If Slovaks wanted their freedom, they would now have to pay.
But, in what is now clearly a pattern, they didn't realize this so in 2006 they passed this health reform law, the first part of the law was to limit the profits of health insurers, the second part was to end commercial for profit and transition to single payer, nonprofit, but they didn't get that far, because a multinational, an insurer sued them for what countries should have a right to do, adjust to changing conditions! Then in a second case the insurer sued them for what appears to me to be what they consider to be a "taking" of their "property" They lost because the panel said they had to wait until Slovakia actually implemented the law
(Slovakia said they could no longer afford to since the first decision had taken their money) So the insurer actually won because the country's people's rights were frustrated.
Under the trade agreement, enacting single payer causes private insurance to lose profits.
I have the feeling, and I hope I am wrong, that Fast Track will just get another cute name and the TPP and all the other "free trade" agreements will be dumped on us before 2016, so that they cannot be attached to a certain prospective Dem candidate. I have noticed that anything Hillary was fond of, like the TPP is, of course, Obama's fault, and Hillary was just a placeholder, doing Obama's bidding.
antigop
(12,778 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)or if it was just the corruption.
antigop
(12,778 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)4dsc
(5,787 posts)I seem like every time she open her mouth she sound's more a like a republican.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)doesn't run because they 'like her'.
Kill me. Now.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Who not to vote for in your Democratic presidential primary in 2016.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 6, 2014, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)DavidG_WI
(245 posts)OhioChick
(23,218 posts)NAFTA decimated Ohio.
As for the TPP, why is this such a big fucking secret? (Negotiations, texts, etc.)
I think this line sums up HRC quite well: "shes a free-trader at heart."
Thanks for posting, great article.
antigop
(12,778 posts)'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.'"
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/16/headlines/sen_elizabeth_warren_criticizes_secrecy_of_trade_talks
OhioChick
(23,218 posts)Sen. Elizabeth Warren: "From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is: Why are the trade talks secret? Youll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me, 'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.'"
I'm really impressed with her, everything that I've heard her speak of leads me to believe that she's truly on the side of the American People.