Democrats Reject Platform Proposal Opposing Trade Deal

[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.