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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: THIS is who they want to put in the Whitehouse? Really?!? [View all]amborin
(16,631 posts)66. What TPP Means:
First: Hillary Clinton OWNS the TPP. She worked on drafting it, as Secretary of State.
She is the main person who wrote the TPP terms.
She was the main cheerleader for the TPP for years!
here is one of numerous examples of her promoting TPP:
The TPP's MAIN BENEFICIARY IS WALL STREET!
The TPP permanently immunizes Wall Street from REGULATIONS.
This earlier post from DU explains:
This post from DU explains further:
Elwood P Dowd
Wall Street is responsible for TPP, and the point man for it came from Citigroup.
The USTR office that wrote TPP is infested with corporate lawyers and lobbyists. In this case, its former Citigroup executive Michael Froman who worked for Robert Rubin that's in charge. He was given a 4 million dollar bonus to take the job at USTR. TPP is all about making money and giving more power to Wall Street and their corporate business partners.
Wall Street Pays Bankers to Work in Government and It Doesn't Want Anyone to Know
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120967/wall-street-pays-bankers-work-government-and-wants-it-secret
Citigroup is one of three Wall Street banks attempting to keep hidden their practice of paying executives multimillion-dollar awards for entering government service. In letters delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the last month, Citi, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley seek exemption from a shareholder proposal, filed by the AFL-CIO labor coalition, which would force them to identify all executives eligible for these financial rewards, and the specific dollar amounts at stake. Critics argue these golden parachutes ensure more financial insiders in policy positions and favorable treatment toward Wall Street.
<snip>
Other banks policies are subtler. Banks often defer certain types of compensation in order to retain talent. When an executive terminates employment, unvested stock options and other forms of deferred compensation are usually forfeited. But several companies let executives equity options continue to vest if they leave for a government position, or allow them to keep retention bonuses that would otherwise be returned to the firm. A 2004 tax law banned accelerated payments but made an exemption for employees who leave for government service. Critics wonder whether the gifts are intended to fill the government with friendly faces who will act in their former employers interests.
It fuels the revolving door between banks and the government, said Michael Smallberg, an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), whose 2013 report detailed these types of compensation agreements. The average executive branch salary is substantially less than these millions in awards, so the bonuses effectively supplement the lower pay, raising questions about who the government officials actually work for.
Citigroup is a serial user of these practices, if only because so many of its alumni serve in government. Jack Lew, Weiss boss at Treasury, had $250,000 to $500,000 in restricted stock vested after he left an executive position at the bank, part of a $1.1 million golden parachute revealed during the confirmation process. Stanley Fischer, currently the vice chair of the Federal Reserve, had a similar clause in his Citigroup employment contract. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman received over $4 million in multiple exit payments from Citigroup when he left for the Obama Administration.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026854944
Here's what Peter de Fazio says:
She is the main person who wrote the TPP terms.
She was the main cheerleader for the TPP for years!
here is one of numerous examples of her promoting TPP:
In the fall of 2011, President Obama announced a shift in the United States strategic focus toward the Asia-Pacific region on military and economic matters. Inheriting a foreign policy predominantly fixated on the Middle East, the Obama administration set out on a renewed path to align current government resources with future priorities.
In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton penned a piece for Foreign Policy describing this regional policy as a pivot point.
Clinton further articulated interest in expanding economic liberalization through agreements such as the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
This re-balancing became a cornerstone for the Obama administrations foreign policy objectives, and the principal economic and foreign policy component of the pivot to Asia is the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton penned a piece for Foreign Policy describing this regional policy as a pivot point.
Clinton further articulated interest in expanding economic liberalization through agreements such as the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
This re-balancing became a cornerstone for the Obama administrations foreign policy objectives, and the principal economic and foreign policy component of the pivot to Asia is the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The TPP's MAIN BENEFICIARY IS WALL STREET!
The TPP permanently immunizes Wall Street from REGULATIONS.
This earlier post from DU explains:
TPP: Allows Wall Street to sue the government to gut financial and consumer protection regulations.
If you thought the recent bills passed in the house gutting Dodd Frank were bad, it's nothing compared to what the TPP will do to financial regulation.
Not only will it be gutted, but it will be gutted in such a way that prevents future congresses and presidents from ever reinstating it, because it means they can sue us in rigged ISDS tribunals to gut our regulations.
Don't take my word for it. From Elizabeth Warren:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/elizabeth-warren-trade-deal_n_6350312.html
If you thought the recent bills passed in the house gutting Dodd Frank were bad, it's nothing compared to what the TPP will do to financial regulation.
Not only will it be gutted, but it will be gutted in such a way that prevents future congresses and presidents from ever reinstating it, because it means they can sue us in rigged ISDS tribunals to gut our regulations.
Don't take my word for it. From Elizabeth Warren:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/elizabeth-warren-trade-deal_n_6350312.html
This post from DU explains further:
Elwood P Dowd
Wall Street is responsible for TPP, and the point man for it came from Citigroup.
The USTR office that wrote TPP is infested with corporate lawyers and lobbyists. In this case, its former Citigroup executive Michael Froman who worked for Robert Rubin that's in charge. He was given a 4 million dollar bonus to take the job at USTR. TPP is all about making money and giving more power to Wall Street and their corporate business partners.
Wall Street Pays Bankers to Work in Government and It Doesn't Want Anyone to Know
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120967/wall-street-pays-bankers-work-government-and-wants-it-secret
Citigroup is one of three Wall Street banks attempting to keep hidden their practice of paying executives multimillion-dollar awards for entering government service. In letters delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the last month, Citi, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley seek exemption from a shareholder proposal, filed by the AFL-CIO labor coalition, which would force them to identify all executives eligible for these financial rewards, and the specific dollar amounts at stake. Critics argue these golden parachutes ensure more financial insiders in policy positions and favorable treatment toward Wall Street.
<snip>
Other banks policies are subtler. Banks often defer certain types of compensation in order to retain talent. When an executive terminates employment, unvested stock options and other forms of deferred compensation are usually forfeited. But several companies let executives equity options continue to vest if they leave for a government position, or allow them to keep retention bonuses that would otherwise be returned to the firm. A 2004 tax law banned accelerated payments but made an exemption for employees who leave for government service. Critics wonder whether the gifts are intended to fill the government with friendly faces who will act in their former employers interests.
It fuels the revolving door between banks and the government, said Michael Smallberg, an investigator for the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), whose 2013 report detailed these types of compensation agreements. The average executive branch salary is substantially less than these millions in awards, so the bonuses effectively supplement the lower pay, raising questions about who the government officials actually work for.
Citigroup is a serial user of these practices, if only because so many of its alumni serve in government. Jack Lew, Weiss boss at Treasury, had $250,000 to $500,000 in restricted stock vested after he left an executive position at the bank, part of a $1.1 million golden parachute revealed during the confirmation process. Stanley Fischer, currently the vice chair of the Federal Reserve, had a similar clause in his Citigroup employment contract. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman received over $4 million in multiple exit payments from Citigroup when he left for the Obama Administration.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026854944
Here's what Peter de Fazio says:
Secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership Revealed
from:
Mortensen, Camilla. Eugene Weekly [Eugene, Or] 02 Jan 2014: N_A.
Hillary not only had major input into writing the TPP, but she has been its leading cheerleader:
Hillary Clinton, herself, wrote a piece in Foreign Policy journal advertising and praising and advocating for TPP:
Do Hillary's promises of "strong protections for workers" mean anything?
NO, according to leading scholars of trade agreements, especially the TPP:
Scholars say that promises of worker protections are essentially an advertising gimmick:
The Myth of the Level Playing Field
Faux, Jeff. The American Prospect 23.3 (Apr 2012): 47-50.
The ILO conventions are specifically excluded from the U.S. draft of the TPP.
....According to the industry newsletter Inside U.S. Trade, the proposal states that TPP countries "should take measures to reduce trade in products made through forced or child labor" and should apply their national worker protections to free-trade and export-processing zones.....
....Unfortunately, for many governments in less developed countries and investors in developed countries, exploiting labor is the point- cheap workers represent these nations' comparative advantage. As then-Peruvian President Alan Garcia told a cheering Chamber of Commerce the night that the U.S. -Peru trade deal was signed: "Come and open your factories in my country so we can sell your own products back to the U.S."
....If under these labor chapters, workers can still be intimidated, fired, or even murdered for trying to form a labor union, how effective can they be?" The answer is, hardly effective at all. Almost 20 years after NAFTA, companies violate Mexico's labor laws with impunity.........
Moreover, even the tiny improvement of the United States' TPP labor proposal over the Peru agreement will certainly be watered down in the negotiations. None of the other governments are enthusiastic. Countries like Malaysia and Singapore are hostile, and the inclusion of Vietnam, where unions are an arm of the government and labor oppression is rampant, and Brunei, which has a large number of mistreated foreign workers and is ruled by a 600-year-old autocratic sultanate, mocks the assumption that governments will take labor-protection rules seriously.
Deputy National Security Adviser Michael Froman assured Inside U.S. Trade in January that the Obama team would push for "a high standard labor agreement" but then suggested that labor protections were not that important because the benefits of free trade to American workers would go far beyond whatever the content of the labor chapter turned out to be.
What would TPP do?
Scholars say:
The offshoring of work will accelerate.
Vietnam-where wages are lower than China- will take from what little is left of the bottom end of U.S. manufacturing.
Malaysia and Singapore will pull from somewhat higher up the value-added ladder.
To keep their jobs, American industrial workers will take cuts in pay and see middle-class benefits like pensions and health care disappear.
The TPP will help accelerate the evolution of a two-tier wage system - whereby younger workers get hired for less- into three tiers and more.
Because labor markets are connected, the downward pressure in manufacturing wages will spread to other sectors as well, and from private to public employment.
Wage depression also will expand out to workers in the large, extended labor force in countries with which we already have free-trade agreements.
Among those dragged down in this quickening race to the bottom will be workers in Mexico, where lack of job opportunities is a major factor in the vicious internal drug wars that have already claimed some 50,000 lives in the last five years.
As hard times there get harder, social instability is bound to spill over our borders in some form.
Under pressure from public opinion and Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton recently flip flopped on TPP, with weasel words.
But Hillary's past record speaks the truth. Hillary will pass TPP:
from:
Mortensen, Camilla. Eugene Weekly [Eugene, Or] 02 Jan 2014: N_A.
Hillary not only had major input into writing the TPP, but she has been its leading cheerleader:
As secretary of state in President Barack Obama's cabinet, Mrs. Clinton heaped praise on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation agreement that is one of Mr. Obama's top priorities.
In one speech, she said the pact would "lower trade barriers while raising standards, creating more and better growth."
from:
U.S. News: Clinton Walking Fine Line on Trade Deal
Nicholas, Peter . Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 23 Apr 2015: A.4.
In one speech, she said the pact would "lower trade barriers while raising standards, creating more and better growth."
from:
U.S. News: Clinton Walking Fine Line on Trade Deal
Nicholas, Peter . Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 23 Apr 2015: A.4.
Hillary Clinton, herself, wrote a piece in Foreign Policy journal advertising and praising and advocating for TPP:
Americas Pacific Century
The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.
By Hillary Clinton
October 11, 2011
We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific developed and developing alike into a single trading community.
Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of peoples lives whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generations fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/
The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action.
By Hillary Clinton
October 11, 2011
We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific developed and developing alike into a single trading community.
Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth. We believe trade agreements need to include strong protections for workers, the environment, intellectual property, and innovation. They should also promote the free flow of information technology and the spread of green technology, as well as the coherence of our regulatory system and the efficiency of supply chains. Ultimately, our progress will be measured by the quality of peoples lives whether men and women can work in dignity, earn a decent wage, raise healthy families, educate their children, and take hold of the opportunities to improve their own and the next generations fortunes. Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/
Do Hillary's promises of "strong protections for workers" mean anything?
NO, according to leading scholars of trade agreements, especially the TPP:
Scholars say that promises of worker protections are essentially an advertising gimmick:
The Myth of the Level Playing Field
Faux, Jeff. The American Prospect 23.3 (Apr 2012): 47-50.
The ILO conventions are specifically excluded from the U.S. draft of the TPP.
....According to the industry newsletter Inside U.S. Trade, the proposal states that TPP countries "should take measures to reduce trade in products made through forced or child labor" and should apply their national worker protections to free-trade and export-processing zones.....
....Unfortunately, for many governments in less developed countries and investors in developed countries, exploiting labor is the point- cheap workers represent these nations' comparative advantage. As then-Peruvian President Alan Garcia told a cheering Chamber of Commerce the night that the U.S. -Peru trade deal was signed: "Come and open your factories in my country so we can sell your own products back to the U.S."
....If under these labor chapters, workers can still be intimidated, fired, or even murdered for trying to form a labor union, how effective can they be?" The answer is, hardly effective at all. Almost 20 years after NAFTA, companies violate Mexico's labor laws with impunity.........
Moreover, even the tiny improvement of the United States' TPP labor proposal over the Peru agreement will certainly be watered down in the negotiations. None of the other governments are enthusiastic. Countries like Malaysia and Singapore are hostile, and the inclusion of Vietnam, where unions are an arm of the government and labor oppression is rampant, and Brunei, which has a large number of mistreated foreign workers and is ruled by a 600-year-old autocratic sultanate, mocks the assumption that governments will take labor-protection rules seriously.
Deputy National Security Adviser Michael Froman assured Inside U.S. Trade in January that the Obama team would push for "a high standard labor agreement" but then suggested that labor protections were not that important because the benefits of free trade to American workers would go far beyond whatever the content of the labor chapter turned out to be.
What would TPP do?
Scholars say:
The offshoring of work will accelerate.
Vietnam-where wages are lower than China- will take from what little is left of the bottom end of U.S. manufacturing.
Malaysia and Singapore will pull from somewhat higher up the value-added ladder.
To keep their jobs, American industrial workers will take cuts in pay and see middle-class benefits like pensions and health care disappear.
The TPP will help accelerate the evolution of a two-tier wage system - whereby younger workers get hired for less- into three tiers and more.
Because labor markets are connected, the downward pressure in manufacturing wages will spread to other sectors as well, and from private to public employment.
Wage depression also will expand out to workers in the large, extended labor force in countries with which we already have free-trade agreements.
Among those dragged down in this quickening race to the bottom will be workers in Mexico, where lack of job opportunities is a major factor in the vicious internal drug wars that have already claimed some 50,000 lives in the last five years.
As hard times there get harder, social instability is bound to spill over our borders in some form.
Under pressure from public opinion and Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton recently flip flopped on TPP, with weasel words.
But Hillary's past record speaks the truth. Hillary will pass TPP:
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
293 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
I agree. There's no there there that I would support, not on the substantial issues of the day.
highprincipleswork
Feb 2016
#1
You think that list is false? Not only is it true but it is just a partial list. nt
Live and Learn
Feb 2016
#159
Hartmann's list is repeated below. You say it is false. Please go over each, item by item, and
Cal33
Feb 2016
#187
And that's as substantive as a Clinton support ever gets when discussing issues.
rhett o rick
Feb 2016
#243
Yea, I guess you are right, i wouldn't feel good about giving secret speeches either
nolabels
Feb 2016
#80
Because its all about perception. Nevermind the actual history, hidden behind the curtain...
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#111
I can conceive of people having a differant point of view. I cannot understand people
mikehiggins
Feb 2016
#259
You, and the Hillary supporters of which you appear to be, are proving the point.
concreteblue
Feb 2016
#278
So, why are you voting for Hillary? Oh, and ALL OTHERS are not evildoers. Good lord almighty.
libdem4life
Feb 2016
#293
"You can't sway religious fanatics, flat earthers, or Hillary supporters. Facts are anathema to all.
hifiguy
Feb 2016
#193
Sympathetic to HRC? Are you serious? Why would I be more sympathetic to the establishment candidate?
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#71
In high school? She was a junior in college when she decided to support McGovern.
Petrushka
Feb 2016
#245
Over 40 years a registered Democrat, never missed an election always voted a straight
Autumn
Feb 2016
#69
Bernie isn't destroying the party, neither are his supporters. The law allows anyone to run for
Autumn
Feb 2016
#180
No, that's a fact. Anyone is entitled to run for President in any party if they meet the
Autumn
Feb 2016
#195
Well you did find my name and a few of my posts but I fail to see what those have to do with this.
Autumn
Feb 2016
#208
If the Democratic Party can't put up decent opposition to the Republican Party, it needs an overhaul
johnlucas
Feb 2016
#291
As I have said many times, I am a life-long Democrat. I wore an Adlai Stevenson pin to school
JDPriestly
Feb 2016
#135
If I wanted any of those things I would be looking towards the Republican party.
Cassiopeia
Feb 2016
#8
Right You Are - Once Again - BDS Rules - And Democrats Are Forced To Vote - Republican Lite
cantbeserious
Feb 2016
#18
Your bright red quote from John Lennon (who would have been a Bernie supported)
panader0
Feb 2016
#88
Sid never will. Well over half of the posts I see from him are laughing emoticons.
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#116
This Citizen Is Appalled At What Passes For Politics In A Modern Democracy
cantbeserious
Feb 2016
#15
Congratulations! You've successfully avoided countering the aforementioned issues!
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#93
And yet you've STILL managed to successfully avoid countering the aforementioned issues!
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#107
More like, spew a bunch of information that fails to serve as a counter to the argument.
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#118
People with this mindset have been running things for far too long in the Dem Party.
Broward
Feb 2016
#47
I reject your notion that nominating Bernie would lead to a republican president...
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#167
It's just a glimpse into the 'inside Washington' country club. These folks don't give a
YOHABLO
Feb 2016
#263
BAH! THat's nothing that a laughing emoticon defense/rebuttal can't overcome.
stupidicus
Feb 2016
#20
Why is that? If everyone gets covered, it is Universal Healthcare, bro. She'll get there faster
Hoyt
Feb 2016
#77
Let's see, if we get a public option, increased subsidies, expanded Medicaid in every state, etc.,
Hoyt
Feb 2016
#86
I agree with Reid. When at least 42% of the country is opposed to single payer, why try
Hoyt
Feb 2016
#113
Bernie was attacked for "turning healthcare over to the Republican states",
JonLeibowitz
Feb 2016
#105
I did not say every state. Some red states will still resist, although increased government incen-
Hoyt
Feb 2016
#117
I think she is, but the primary is not the place to fight that issue. Save it for the GOPers.
Hoyt
Feb 2016
#186
i have read her white sheet on healthcare,nothing about a public option
questionseverything
Feb 2016
#189
"I like here approach and pragmatism, not just wild promises pandering to gullible people."
dana_b
Feb 2016
#120
Problem is, Glass-Steagall didn't/doesn't regulate the entities responsible for the melt down.
Hoyt
Feb 2016
#125
Umm...what? Glass-Steagall was exactly about regulating banks and securites that cause the depresion
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#155
GS didn't regulate AGI, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Chevrolet, Chrysler, etc.
Hoyt
Feb 2016
#163
Wrong. GS regulated ALL securities and ALL banks. Nice try. Why dont you go read up on it.
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#171
As I told another poster; I dont accept the "Vote for hillary or else" premise.
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#146
These aren't the main issues with Clinton... In fact, they would appeal to some voters.
Skwmom
Feb 2016
#87
K&R. In general, you can tell from the posts on DU that the thoughtful people, the people
JDPriestly
Feb 2016
#90
I love Bernie, but She's still a million times better than ANY republican candidate.
OverBurn
Feb 2016
#102
'They'? Is that like 'Those people?' How about 'we' meaning the people who are voting for her?
randome
Feb 2016
#109
Right... sure... malign Bernie supporters as acting like tea party...that'll win hearts and minds...
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#217
I fully believe in the power of the vote........................................
turbinetree
Feb 2016
#172
Excluding the rich and powerful, Hillary supporters should never again mock Republicans
Broward
Feb 2016
#185
Since nobody can be bothered to do the research, here are links that support fully or in large part
crim son
Feb 2016
#173
"whoever the DNC nominates!" Like hell. It's the people's choice... NOT the DNC's. Full stop!
Bubzer
Feb 2016
#210
Fuck Who Trump Appoints To The Supreme Court I'll Have My 'Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bernie Sticker
Corey_Baker08
Feb 2016
#203
Just be practical. Hold your nose firmly, forget principles, your conscience, and vote for
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2016
#206
One thing this primary has done is drain away any marginal support I once had for her
deutsey
Feb 2016
#270