HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Anybody got Hillary's str...

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 11:29 AM

 

Anybody got Hillary's strongest statement against the TPP?

31 replies, 2139 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Anybody got Hillary's strongest statement against the TPP? (Original post)
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 OP
tonyt53 Jul 2016 #1
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #3
onecaliberal Jul 2016 #2
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #4
Orsino Jul 2016 #5
Jack Bone Jul 2016 #6
onecaliberal Jul 2016 #9
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #10
onecaliberal Jul 2016 #11
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #13
Adrahil Jul 2016 #16
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #19
Adrahil Jul 2016 #21
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #22
DanTex Jul 2016 #14
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #17
DanTex Jul 2016 #18
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #20
DanTex Jul 2016 #24
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #25
DanTex Jul 2016 #26
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #28
DanTex Jul 2016 #30
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #31
Tatiana Jul 2016 #7
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #8
Tatiana Jul 2016 #12
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #15
goldent Jul 2016 #29
Chathamization Jul 2016 #23
grahamhgreen Jul 2016 #27

Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 11:41 AM

1. She said that after she read the final product, that she was against it.

 

Many were for it before the final version was available. Many of those that have read the terms are now against it. That is called gathering the facts and then having the good sense to change their position. You can't get much more against it than saying "I'm against it" in public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 11:45 AM

3. I'm looking for a quote so I can persuade some people.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to onecaliberal (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 11:47 AM

4. Anything better than this:

 

From the link:

"Clinton said Obama should work with opponents like House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who led opposition to the trade package. If Obama does not get the best deal possible, "there should be no deal," Clinton said in Des Moines."

Lot of wiggle room in that phrasing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 11:57 AM

5. It's a slow start, but the right direction.

We need to hear more about our nominee's objection, but more importantly, she needs to hear from us about ours.

And while we're at it, there's a sitting president who should also be lobbied unceasingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:03 PM

6. hear here! I second this post ^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:31 PM

9. It's the best I could find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:36 PM

10. I found this:

 

"In an interview Wednesday with PBS's Judy Woodruff in Iowa, Clinton said, "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it.""

Still some wiggle room there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:41 PM

11. I saw rep Debbie Dingell on CNN this morning and she strongly defended

The fact that Hillary is against TPP. She even said that she's been friends with Clinton for years but that if Hillary was in favor of TPP she couldn't support her. I wish I could find that interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #11)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 04:52 PM

13. ID like to find her stating she is against the TPP, not that

 

she is against the TPP, the way it is currently written.

With a document that size, I'm sure that's true if anybody, either for or against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:16 PM

16. I don't get your point.

 

Unless you oppose trade deals in general, wouldn't you always oppose deals as currently written?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:30 PM

19. That is my point. It's easy for either party to say they oppose it as it is currently written. As it

 

should be, in few negotiations do both sides get what they want.

In the case of the TPP, what some people are looking for is someone to state they are against it, as dumbfuck don is doing.

I'm trying to reassure them that she's against it to.

My more so, I'd like to see her reject neoliberal/neoconservative trade polices in full, since historically they have hurt the middle class and small businesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:37 PM

21. I'm guessing most people have no idea...

 

... What is in the TPP, or in many trade deals. Economic isolation and protectionism is rarely a good idea. Take a look at the Great Depression. What we need is Fair Trade, not Free Trade. That will take a deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:41 PM

22. It's not hard. Alexander Hamilton set up a system whereby any foreign made goods were taxed to the

 

level of manufactured goods made in America.

It worked well enough to fund all government expenditures until we started the income tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 04:55 PM

14. Of course there's wiggle room. There should be.

If the problems with TPP get resolved, then she would be in favor, which makes sense. Just being opposed to TPP because it's called "TPP" is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:18 PM

17. Disagree. The fundamental philosophy behind the TPP is that of neoliberal trade policies,

 

These policies are good for corporations, bad for small businesses and people, in our view.

At least, that's the way they e played out historically

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #17)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:24 PM

18. There has to be trade policy. Which means that we should ratify good trade agreements and

not ratify bad ones. Just being against it because "it's a trade agreement" is an untenable position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:35 PM

20. We're against it because it's a neoliberal trade policy, and should be ratified as a treaty,

 

with 2/3's vote in the Senate.

We now have a huge trade deficit due to these costly trade agreements, in my view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 06:01 PM

24. What does that mean: "it's a neoliberal trade policy."

Doesn't seem to mean anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #24)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 06:25 PM

25. Here's a general overview:

 


The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.

CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.



ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #25)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 06:31 PM

26. TPP has nothing to do with any of that, per se. It's about trade rules.

It has labor and environmental regulations as part of it, which is the opposite of that definition of "neoliberal." It definitely has nothing to do with social service expenditures. Nor is it even remotely related to supply side economics, which is primarily based on the belief that tax cuts for the wealthy magically reduces deficits. Trade policy is distinct from tax policy.

Calling TPP "neo-liberal" is not an intelligent basis of opposition to it. This is just a bunch of ideological buzzwords.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #26)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 07:01 PM

28. You must agree that

 

this part does

"THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. "

Now, since the TPP allows corporations to overturn US law in corporate courts, it therefore liberates ""free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. "

Edit: example: Philip Morris Sues Uruguay Over Graphic Cigarette Packaging


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #28)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 07:15 PM

30. Of course not.

It doesn't allow enterprises to escape from "any bonds imposed by the government". It provides for international arbitration in rare instances where nations adopt protectionist measures that violate the agreement they signed and try to disadvantage foreign companies.

Which is necessary, you can't have a trade agreement without a means to enforce the agreements.

It sounds to me like you just don't think we should be trading with foreign nations, period. I disagree with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 29, 2016, 01:50 AM

31. lol, it's not arbitration when the corporations own the courts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:06 PM

7. She really doesn't have a strong statement against it.

Q: You supported Obama's trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP, dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.

CLINTON: Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings--including those of us who run for office--I do absorb new information. I do look at what's happening in the world. Take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, "this will help raise your wages." And I concluded I could not.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/

But I think she listening to the people and if we encourage her and push her, she will do the right thing and ensure the agreement is not ratified. When politicians take steps (even baby steps like this) in the right direction, we have to encourage them and let them know we will have their back. She's facing a lot of powerful interests who want that agreement ratified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tatiana (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:24 PM

8. I'd like to find that statement the questioner is referencing

 

It would be nice to see something solid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 12:47 PM

12. Coming up empty.



I can't find anything solid, but she does address the issue here a bit with Anderson Cooper at about the 20:29 mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tatiana (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:09 PM

15. The statement is roughly that she will not support the agreement if it does not lead to an increase

 

in Americans wages.

A good point.

My people are also worried about other provisions as well, especially the ability for corporations to overturn American laws in corporate courts.

I wish I could find her making a blanket statement against the entire document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 07:03 PM

29. Here is is

Remarks
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Adelaide, South Australia
November 15, 2012

So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.


From the state dept website: http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 05:47 PM

23. I thought this was a relatively strong statement against it:

Here:

And we’re going to say no to attacks on working families and no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans- Pacific Partnership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chathamization (Reply #23)

Thu Jul 28, 2016, 06:48 PM

27. Excellent! Thank you! This is perfect!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread