Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Please join me in vigorously opposing the #TPP trade agreement." [View all]RiverLover
(7,830 posts)42. Many Democrats are fighting the TPP, which is why it needs the GOP to pass.
The Obama administration, though, has not had the support of Democrats in the United States Congress. Senior Democrat Representative Sander Levin has expressed reservations about the process and the substance of the TPP. Senator Elizabeth Warren has worried about how the TPP will affect the financial regulation of Wall Street. Other Democrats have additional reservations about the TPP. Senator Ron Wyden is of the view that the fast-track regime needs to be overhauled and modernised. Three House of Representatives Democrats Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Alan Grayson (Fla.) maintained that there are insufficient votes in the House to pass the trade promotion authority to secure the approval of the 12-nation TPP. De Lauro commented: Fast-track doesnt have support in the current Congress and wont have support in the next Congress. She declared: The votes are not there.
Nonetheless, President Barack Obama has said that he is willing to defy United States Congressional Democrats on his support of the TPP, and work with Republicans if need be. However, there are significant divisions within the Republicans over the TPP. There could well be insufficient support within the United States Congress for a trade promotion authority.
<<<<Edit of a TON of good info on the TPP>>>
....On the 17 December 2014, Senator Elizabeth Warren and a number of her colleagues, Tammy Baldwin and Ed Markey, wrote to the White House, outlining a number of concerns in respect of the TPP. Warren commented: We are concerned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could make it harder for Congress and regulatory agencies to prevent future financial crisis. She observed, with her colleagues: With millions of families still struggling to recover from the last financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed, we cannot afford a trade deal that undermines the governments ability to protect the American economy.
Warren, Baldwin, and Markey highlighted concerns with three specific provisions that could be part of the TPP. First, the Democrat politicians raised concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement process: Including such provisions in the TPP could expose American taxpayers to billions of dollars in losses and dissuade the government from establishing or enforcing financial rules that impact foreign banks. Warren and her colleagues warned: The consequence would be to strip our regulators of the tools they need to prevent the next crisis.
Second, Senator Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues were concerned about including provisions in the TPP that would commit the American financial sector to market access rules. She observed: Such rules could be interpreted by international panels to prohibit basic, non-discriminatory restrictions on predatory or toxic financial products such as particularly risky forms of derivatives because those restrictions deny access to the U.S. financial markets. Warren and her colleagues observed: To protect consumers and to address sources of systemic financial risk, Congress must maintain flexibility to impose restrictions on harmful financial products and on the conduct or structure of financial firms.
Third, Warren and the other Democrat politicians were concerned about the inclusion of terms in the TPP that could limit the ability of the government to use capital controls: If the TPP were to include provisions from past pacts that required unrestricted capital transfers, it could limit Congress prerogative to enact not only capital controls, but basic reform measures like a financial transactions tax.
The group also requested that the United States Trade Representative provide Congressmen and women with all U.S. proposals and bracketed negotiating texts relating to the three provisions. The group wanted transparency in respect of the TPPs chapters on investment, financial services, and dispute settlement....
https://medium.com/@DrRimmer/senator-elizabeth-warren-fights-the-white-house-over-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-3cd7bb0a1c91
Nonetheless, President Barack Obama has said that he is willing to defy United States Congressional Democrats on his support of the TPP, and work with Republicans if need be. However, there are significant divisions within the Republicans over the TPP. There could well be insufficient support within the United States Congress for a trade promotion authority.
<<<<Edit of a TON of good info on the TPP>>>
....On the 17 December 2014, Senator Elizabeth Warren and a number of her colleagues, Tammy Baldwin and Ed Markey, wrote to the White House, outlining a number of concerns in respect of the TPP. Warren commented: We are concerned that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could make it harder for Congress and regulatory agencies to prevent future financial crisis. She observed, with her colleagues: With millions of families still struggling to recover from the last financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed, we cannot afford a trade deal that undermines the governments ability to protect the American economy.
Warren, Baldwin, and Markey highlighted concerns with three specific provisions that could be part of the TPP. First, the Democrat politicians raised concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement process: Including such provisions in the TPP could expose American taxpayers to billions of dollars in losses and dissuade the government from establishing or enforcing financial rules that impact foreign banks. Warren and her colleagues warned: The consequence would be to strip our regulators of the tools they need to prevent the next crisis.
Second, Senator Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues were concerned about including provisions in the TPP that would commit the American financial sector to market access rules. She observed: Such rules could be interpreted by international panels to prohibit basic, non-discriminatory restrictions on predatory or toxic financial products such as particularly risky forms of derivatives because those restrictions deny access to the U.S. financial markets. Warren and her colleagues observed: To protect consumers and to address sources of systemic financial risk, Congress must maintain flexibility to impose restrictions on harmful financial products and on the conduct or structure of financial firms.
Third, Warren and the other Democrat politicians were concerned about the inclusion of terms in the TPP that could limit the ability of the government to use capital controls: If the TPP were to include provisions from past pacts that required unrestricted capital transfers, it could limit Congress prerogative to enact not only capital controls, but basic reform measures like a financial transactions tax.
The group also requested that the United States Trade Representative provide Congressmen and women with all U.S. proposals and bracketed negotiating texts relating to the three provisions. The group wanted transparency in respect of the TPPs chapters on investment, financial services, and dispute settlement....
https://medium.com/@DrRimmer/senator-elizabeth-warren-fights-the-white-house-over-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-3cd7bb0a1c91
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Please join me in vigorously opposing the #TPP trade agreement." [View all]
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
OP
I stand with Senator Sanders on this, and many other, issues! Run, Bernie. Run! n/t
CaliforniaPeggy
Dec 2014
#1
All his posts should! I wish the other Progressive Senators and Congressmen and women were
Dustlawyer
Dec 2014
#11
Yes, any Democrat worth the title should be out there supporting Sanders on this issue.
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#25
Bill Moyers has been spot on all year and then some. His interview with former Texas state
Dustlawyer
Dec 2014
#33
Someone's got to oppose Obama on it. Bernie may be the only one, though. The 1% wants it, REAL BAD!
blkmusclmachine
Dec 2014
#4
I don't know why Bernie, who isn't even a Democrat, should be the only one to oppose this.
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#26
That is good news, but still nowhere near enough to stop this from happening.
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#60
Those who engage in those kinds of distractions know they don't matter. They are simply trying
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#78
'A Corporate Coup D'etat'! Exactly. And yet, we see people claiming that 'we don't know what's in
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#15
About that Fast Track, if anyone here is a member of/fellow traveler with ANY of
genwah
Dec 2014
#27
One of the many reasons why I will not support her, even if she is the nominee. I will focus on
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#21
No, it's not a disclosure. I've said that openly from the day she voted for the neocon war which she
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#47
I stand with you. I made a pledge to never support any Democrat that betrayed their
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#55
Thank you rhett. I don't get the 'horror' that anyone would state the truth or that they should be
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#58
I think "they" want us to commit to "never supporting" HRC, so that if she wins the nomination, they
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#80
You guys think that you are soo very clever. But actually you are very transparent.
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#97
And this is your Pres Obama's administration. Tougher on whistle-blowers and journalists
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#107
I sure hope the Dem Party hasn't sunk to the level of threatening voters that
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#87
I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have never refused to answer such
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#88
It's interesting that no one, not Pres Obama or any of his supporters will argue the merits of
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#53
I assume that you would like to hold Boy Bush accountable for the lies he used to get
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#79
The Third Way/DLC changed the Dem Party from the Party of the Working Class to the Party of
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#19
Good question. And I don't know the answer. Why did Clinton approve of NAFTA?
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#24
All i can say to that is, the party obviously needs new strategists. They are out of touch with the
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#49
That's the wrong question. He is doing his part. The question is, 'what are WE the People going to
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#38
Is it? Where did you get that from? How about calling YOUR Rep and asking them to support
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#50
No, I'm saying that Senator Sanders (like Senator Franken, frankly) -- likes to talk..
X_Digger
Dec 2014
#51
That's it?? When the senate comes back in session, be could be on the floor throwing a cog in it.
X_Digger
Dec 2014
#89
He's using the mike he has to get information out to the people. How many Americans
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#65
Seems you're disparaging the ones that are at least speaking out. What are other reps doing?
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#77
So you are waiting for someone to lead? It's not his place. Join moveon.org, or DFA or another
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#91
I'm not waiting for anything. I'd like Bernie to join us and do more than yap! n/t
X_Digger
Dec 2014
#92
I am surprised I haven't put you on ignore before this. You have nothing to add here but
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#98
You feel free. And continue to finger wag at people who don't just pay lip service. n/t
X_Digger
Dec 2014
#101
I'm with him, and he can oppose it, but I don't see how any of us will even get a say about it.
ancianita
Dec 2014
#35
Very good information, thank you. We may have to depend on some Republicans opposing it also, as
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#63
"Fast-track doesn’t have support in the current Congress and won’t have support in the next Congress
pampango
Dec 2014
#71
What a great post. Should be an OP on its own. True, we are hoping that we can achieve
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#57
I don't know how they sleep at night. To be able to do so requires suppressing
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#73