Last edited Thu Dec 4, 2014, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

"Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers,"
~prez Obama (direct quote)

I'm not laughing about this, because this draconian secretive POS corporatist power-grab called TPP is no laughing matter.

btw- on edit, here's a another link from Washington Post, since you seem allergic to Common Dreams.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-he-willing-to-defy-democrats-on-his-support-of-trans-pacific-partnership/2014/12/03/25edcaf4-7b30-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

to that rude emoticon?

or watch anything that might be damaging to us.

Btw, I love Common Dreams, among all the other once acceptable liberal publications before their general tendency to deal with facts no matter how inconvenient, became a bit of a problem for some.

Praise the Lord!

and thus sees no need to discuss matters Canadian?

The race to the bottom.

American jobs, (where, do we have to go to Asia to find them) and it's actually good for labor and ENVIRONMENTAL interests'. Did he not read the leaked Wikileaks documents which demonstrated how this 'agreement' will WEAKEN our own Environmental laws??

Second time today I am speechless.

Kerry's delay of the torture report,, and now this. And it's still only 5.00 PM Eastern Time!!

That's treason, in my book.

guy. Apparently Obama has verified the OP. Is he not a credible source? I believe him, how about you?

from a Canadian Conservative neo-liberal.

He also apparently is one of the few in Canada that agrees with Harper that Canadian health care should be more privatized-more like the ACA which he openly prefers to single payer.

Because of his right wing views, he knows better than to join the conversation other than to hate on liberals and progressives or fawn over our neo-liberals.

What he feels is wrong with liberal publications is that he disdains liberal thought, it really is that simple.
Also, as you know by now he will refuse to answer anyone, unless it is to bait them, such is his entertainment - taunting liberals and baiting them like any right winger.

from this 'campaign' or whatever it is, it isn't working, if anything it does the opposite, it confirms a lot of what people thought, but when they see these same old anti-Liberal 'posters' around, they know they were right.

I wonder how many converts they make? From my experience none, quite the opposite because they are generally so unpleasant, unable to interact with other posters, they even turn off those who might have some things in common with them.

Anyhow, they do serve some purpose, they often help to kick important threads.

right wing shit starter troll.

His water does not run as deep as you give him credit for.

than they are due. I love anti-Liberals, been dealing with them for years online. I get a kick of how frightened they are of Liberals. That tells me how powerful our ideas are and that we are a real threat to the Corporate Criminals who do not want to share their ill-gotten plunder with the people they steal from.

I like that role!

FYI

On Sat Dec 6, 2014, 05:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

He is a Canadian from oil country and a Harper supporter, it is to be expected
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5921650

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Doesn't pretend to be anything other than an unprovoked and very personal attack on Sid Dithers

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 6, 2014, 05:24 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Holy shit, this is overboard! Anyone who votes to leave this alone, well...
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A tough one, The poster in question does exactly as the alerter says, in this thread also, simply laughing at people and refusing to respond to reasonable questions. It is a repeating pattern, and disruptive.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

saying these things.

Gee if someone didn't know better they would think you are attempting to press peoples buttons.

with a well known Liberal Publication?

It has got to be a conservative for them to believe it. Wait until Faux Noize says something about it, then they'll eat it up like candy.

That's linked from the CommonDreams article. But you knew that, having read it before laughing, didn't you, Sid? You'd never deploy the rofl emoticon before you'd fully considered an argument you don't like, would you, Sid? You have far too much intellectual integrity for that, don't you, Sid?

He didn't say that at all, per the quoted material in the WaPo article, and let's face it, you'd have to have it in for PBO to take either headline seriously. So here's to DU's one and only SidDithers who takes an awful lot of sh#t without complaining:







and for good measure

P

Big difference and an obvious one. Why carry water for wingers? We're supposed to see through that crap, not fall for it.

to agree with the majority of Republicans. I really don't think you want to introduce the 'carrying water for wingers' meme into this conversation.

But Common Dreams offers excellent journalism & verifiable truths not found in corporate MSM. Maybe if you read it sometime, you can contribute more value here than~

Sorry, Sid. Try as you might, you simply cannot credibly deny that TPP is a major priority for Obama.

makes you laugh like a loon? What unorthodoxy have they committed?

speaking engagements .

It's not you , me or the middle class who will be losing their jobs

Those are work a hundred grand or two each for attending a couple of meetings.

Why, we would be watchign TPP go through right now if a Republican had become president, instead of a Democrat. Don't you just love how making sure we have a Democratic president stops Republican policies from going through?

at least I have been told that

to promote corporate trade deals, that is!

GOTV!

Last edited Sun Dec 7, 2014, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

It out there somewhere and I might just decide to go look for it. But first things first. I love the smell of outrage on a beautiful fall morning so first I'm gonna spend the day giggling over it. Mkay?

Okay I'll tell you, your gonna find out anyway. A poster here on DU didn't get up this morning and vote in the run off for Mary Landrieu. AND MARY LOST!!!!!!

Mary lost because of a waffle. But in all fairness it was a Belgium waffle, a Belgian waffle with berries. And a side of bacon. I forgot to ask if they had whipped cream. Gonna go ask now.

What does it take?

I'm so angry I feel as though I could march on Washington. But I'm not 20 anymore, and I don't relish being arrested.

Don't you understand that what you're doing is WRONG?

It's not wrong for the people DC politicians serves these days-One bright spot out of this is the Fact Dems are not trying so hard to Hide Who They Work For Now.

And subsequent congressional votes will expose the Dem shills and create a great list so we (if we're still allowed to vote in 2016, that is) know who to jettison Out of congress, imo.

No, in DC it's Not Wrong-one cannot realize that when one cannot see past the "greenback" incentive and the only people one is willing to actually listen to are wealthy beyond ones own imagination.....
I don't know wtf happened to candidate Obama who became POTUS Obama....Seems like two different people Great Campaign Words VS Action doesn't it? ... it all stinks. I only know one thing: Talk is cheap and Whiskey costs money--we don't see a lot of booze lined up for us, do we?

... so can you please set out, in detail, what this deal means, how it will affect American workers, and how it is WRONG?

I'm not asking for the usual boilerplate "it's wrong because it is" hyperbole. I'd like your take on the DETAILS of this proposed agreement, and a DETAILED account of its impacts.

TIA.

But try reading these two sources:

1) The AFL-CIO's reasoned analysis of 20 years experience of NAFTA: www.aflcio.org/NAFTAat20

2) The AFL-CIO's reasoned analysis of the USTR's own statements of what the TPP will be: http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP (be sure to click through on the hot links)

... of the "secret deal" - and if it's "secret", how can one opine on the "secret" details?

There are also leaks.

Go to this website: http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

USTR admits the agreement will:

include "investor-State dispute settlement" -- which allows foreign corporations to bypass US courts to challenge state, federal, and local laws they don't think are "fair" and to recover unlimited amounts of "lost expected profits" when they win cases in front of private arbitration panels


"promote economic integration and jobs in the region, including through the development of regional production and supply chains." "Supply chains" means offshoring more US jobs.

"E-Commerce. The e-commerce text will enhance the viability of the digital economy by ensuring that impediments to both consumer and businesses embracing this medium of trade are addressed. Negotiators have made encouraging progress, including on provisions addressing customs duties in the digital environment, authentication of electronic transactions, and consumer protection. Additional proposals on information flows and treatment of digital products are under discussion." This means undermining digital privacy and consumer opt-out laws so that countries will HAVE to let companies store consumer and patient data anywhere they want, including in off shore servers that are out of reach of domestic data privacy and security rights.

"facilitate the opening of the procurement markets"--opening procurement markets means undermining "Buy America" and "Buy American" laws by treating bids from the 11 other TPP countries as if they were bids by American bidders. This means our taxpayer dollars head overseas creating jobs there, not here.

"Proposals are under discussion on many forms of intellectual property, including trademarks, geographical indications, copyright and related rights, patents, trade secrets, data required for the approval of certain regulated products, as well as intellectual property enforcement and genetic resources and traditional knowledge." Do we really want to allow patents on genes and on indigenous knowledge? Do we really want to trademarks the same as patents and copyrights? US law has never done so.

"Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS). To enhance animal and plant health and food safety and facilitate trade among the TPP countries, the nine countries have agreed to reinforce and build upon existing rights and obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The SPS text will contain a series of new commitments on science, transparency, regionalization, cooperation, and equivalence." First of all, would we want to build on WTO rules that have already been used to undermine dolphin-safe tuna labeling and country of origin food labeling in the US. And we want stronger laws?
Ag Secretary Vilsack has already indicated that he opposes GMO labeling, and the corporations that have the largest influence in the negotiations have made clear their opinion that GMO labeling is not "science based." Therefore, the TPP will impede GMO labeling efforts.

This is just a start . . . if you want to know what is going on, you have to investigate. You have to learn the code words that the trade negotiators use for corporate friendly rules that sound harmless. In short, you have to be an active citizen. Because of the secrecy, the truth isn't going to come out on its own. By the time negotiations are complete and the text is revealed is too late. Because by then, no changes can be made due to Fast Track.

I'm looking for the details of the actual agreement - not "opinions" on what it says, or what it means, nor "leaks" as to what it might say, or might mean.

There's been a lot of talk about how this agreement will impact Americans - I would like to hear the DETAILS contained in the agreement, and have a DETAILED account of what that impact will be.

"Some people are saying" may be good enough for FOX-News viewers - but it ain't good enough for me.

"Because of the secrecy, the truth isn't going to come out on its own."

Amazing how the "secrecy" is somehow "known" to those who have the "code words" ...

is known to people who follow trade deals and know what those words have referred to in every prior trade deal. Have you ever read one? Try it: http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/final-text

Then read another and another. You will find that most of them are 90% the same, as in word-for-word the same, which means people who say "we know what they are negotiating" are right because what they are negotiating is largely the same as what they have negotiated before. We who follow trade learn from prior

The "code words," which are just insider speak that anyone who follows the trade debate knows (like job creator and death tax are code words in other policy areas), are found in the Fast Track bill from 2002, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3009enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3009enr.pdf.

Which you should also read. You will find words like "science based, "transparency," and "dispute settlement mechanism," all of which led to the ability of corporations to challenge the prices set for drugs in government-supported health programs, food labeling, and even requirements that corporations clean up the environmental messes they have made.

You might learn something by reading these sources instead of blindly refusing to look into the TPP. Why are you committed to staying the dark? What are you afraid of?

You do realize that if you wait to read the TPP until it is published in its final form, there will be no opportunity to change its terms, right? That is not wild speculation, that is how trade deals work (again, you will find this in the Fast Track bill).

Would you have said the same for the healthcare bill (the ACA)? Did you wait till it was finished before you found out what was going on and weighed into the debate? Is that how you respond to tax bills, spending bills, defense authorizations, telecom bills, the Iraq War authorization, to TARP? Did you wait till they were in absolutely final form to be interested and to advocate for what you want? Then why do you accept that that approach is OK for trade deals? Think about it.

I asked for the details of this particular agreement. I have been reading on DU for a very long time about what a horrendous impact it will have. But no one has ever been specific about exactly how.

I think that's because no one here knows.

I have given you many links that make that clear. But those are not good enough for you. You have asked to see the secret text. You can't. That is the meaning of secret. You do understand that the USTR is not releasing the negotiating texts, right? And that to figure out what is in it, you have to read USTR press releases, USTR blogs, leaked texts, and prior agreements. There are many of us who have done that because we care to follow the issue. So what is it that will satisfy you exactly? What makes you say "no one knows"? You think we are all making this up? The Sierra Club is making it up? The Friends of the Earth os making it up? Public Citizen is making it up? The AFL-CIO is making it up? AARP is making it up? Rep. DeLauro is making it up?

And what, you don't trust any trade policy experts? You don't trust Joseph Stiglitz?

Your plan is to do what exactly . . . wait until the text is completed and released publicly (it will be close to 1000 pages) so that you can read and interpret the entire thing yourself? And then you do know that it is unamendable at that point, right? So if you don't like anything you read you won't be able to do anything about it. To get in the game and impact the contents of the agreement, you need to get involved now.

But you demand "details" of the text, which you know are secret. Yet, you won't look at leaked texts, nor the texts of past trade agreements, nor analysis of the impacts of past trade agreements, nor analysis of the small amount of information that USTR has made public about what it is negotiating. So, what exactly would satisfy you?

By the way, FOX loves the agreement and is not in fact reporting negatively about it. Murdoch will benefit greatly from more corporate-friendly trade rules.

I just thought that with all the hair-on-fire over this agreement, surely the details must be known by those who find it appropriate to have set their scalps ablaze in the first place.

Otherwise, it would just be a bunch of people whining about something they know absolutely nothing about.

but thanks for the insult.

And no one is "whining," but thanks for the second insult.

We are doing what is known as education and activism. We are trying to get other people to care, to read about it, to educate themselves so they too can care, and so they can contact their elected officials and say things like "Please vote no on Fast Track" and "Please oppose ISDS in the TPP."

Or you can sit around and pretend you don't know that USTR is pursuing ISDS in this agreement -- when the USTR website clearly states that it is -- and do nothing and let it happen.

That's not hair on fire, that is being a smart, participatory citizen. Up to you.

Romney running in 2016 stories. Had a hunch and the smell was getting stronger by the day. But,playing ball with Orin Hatch and his back stabbers,we are totally screwed. Read the minutes of Obama's Business Roundtable Meet and Greet. Sounded like a deal was consummated and the Rethugs would call off the hate dogs. Legacy Tour Baby!!!!!!!!

I hoped that enough people in Congress would protest it.

New and important problems gave him enough of a diversion.

In a way, he is smoothing the roads for Hillary, I guess.

This way, it is all on his watch.

of the countries.

although I disagree with him on this issue.

The most important part would be a fee and open discussion in
Congress, to hear the debates, and to know who voted
which way.

will be public knowledge.

The Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934 gave the president authority to negotiate trade agreements just like other international agreements. Before that congress did trade agreement negotiations. As with any international agreement that a president negotiates, trade agreements get submitted to congress for debate and approval or rejection.

The Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934 is no longer in effect. It did give the President Authority to negotiate tariffs on behalf of Congress, which makes perfect sense.

Modern day "Fast Track" makes no such sense. The most recent "Fast Track Authority," enacted in 2002, and expired in 2007 authorizes to president to negotiate anything -- not just tariffs. This kind of authority did not exist until the Trade Act of 1974.

Read about the latest Fast Track bill (the one introduced by Baucus, Hatch, and Camp) here: http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Fast-Track-Legislation/Fast-Facts-on-Fast-Track

It is 0% like the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934.

Moreover, get your facts straight. A "free and open discussion" of a bill that Congress cannot amend, and must vote on within 90 days, is neither free NOR open. Tell me one other bill (appropriations, tax, healthcare, minimum wage, environmental, banking, spying, war, ANYTHING) that cannot be amended, killed in committee, filibustered, or otherwise delayed. The answer is zero.

was expanded later. Fine. Does that then mean that republicans were a little bit right in 1936 to accuse FDR in the presidential campaign that year of "secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities" - by extension 'shipping American jobs overseas'? And that those who make a similar against Obama are even more right.

International negotiations are almost always done 'secretly'. (Witness the current negotiations with Iran.) If final agreement is reached (proving to be quite difficult in the case of the Iranian talks), the treaty is submitted to each nation for ratification - in our case it goes to congress for approval or rejection. If each country then made changes to the treaty, each 'new' treaty would have to be resubmitted to each country for its changes to our changes, then our changes to their changes, and so on. That would result in a world with few, if any, international agreements. That does not sound like a path to solving global problems through peaceful negotiations.

If each country's legislature is going to 'renegotiate' every proposed agreement, perhaps we should just have parliaments do the negotiating in the first place. Of course, that was what the RTAA was designed to avoid.

When republicans rejected US membership in the League of Nations after WWI they did not get to renegotiate the terms of our membership, they just rejected it. When the republican senate the idea of an FDR's International Trade Organization, they did not get to renegotiate its terms, it just died. Name me a negotiated international agreement that our congress had the full power to 'renegotiate' domestically that eventually became a recognized international treaty.

This is all kind of academic in the sense that Obama is not going to get 'fast track' authority. Tea party republicans don't trust him. Liberals in congress don't trust him. (The only people who seem to trust him are the "perhaps uniformed", "yeah, for our team" liberal base. Conservatives - by 85% - don't want Obama to have that authority.) From a republican point of view why should they give 'fast track' authority to Obama? Without it, republicans who control congress will be able make any changes they want to the TPP. Pesky provisions on labor rights and the environment (if they are in there) - GONE. Some multinational wants higher tariffs on a foreign competitor, hard for a republican to say not to that.

Obama is not going to get fast track authority and he would be a fool to submit the TPP to a republican congress without it.

FDR's authority had nothing to do with "secret deals". It had to do with negotiating tariffs. The power to classify all trade documents, no matter the sensitivity or the topic, came with the Trade Act of 1974. The power to negotiate the things we care about in secret (health policy, labor policy, food safety, banking regulations, intellectual property policy) came in 1974. That is qualitatively different than the Reciprocal Tariff Act, which was solely about reciprocal tariff reductions -- nothing secret, nothing untoward, no surprises in the text.

You couldn't be more wrong on the secrecy of international negotiations. Rio +20, the World Intellectual Property Organization and even the WTO do not do their negotiations in secret. They allow observers, publish draft texts, and seek input from outside stakeholders. And yes, these organizations have and do reach agreements. That is called, wait for it, DEMOCRACY!!! Where citizens have some input into making the laws they have to live under. Of course, when it is complete, you have to require countries to pass the deal as agreed upon or you'd never end. But that restriction makes no sense when there has been NO public participation or input and no democracy.

You do not know what you are talking about when you say Obama won't get Fast Track authority. I posted the tea party trade votes for you and you clearly didn't look at them. It won't be as easy as you posit and you only state it as a done deal to prevent people from taking action against Fast Track. Why do I bother debating USTR's mouthpiece?

How does Krugman know it's "not so bad'?

Has he read the entire thing?

You have a link for Krugman saying this is "no big deal"?

If you disagree with him on one issue does that mean he is 'not on our side'?

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

Have destroyed millions of American jobs, entire industries (garments, electronics...all but autos and that is only because the government stepped in )and made men like Romney rich...they are almost single handedly the reason for the demise of the middle class and why our kids can't get jobs...they caused states to bleed tax money too which led to a deep decline in among other things state support of colleges and university...it can not be said enough that no Democrat should ever support any globalization deals...and the only open market is the US market which allows the Romney' of the world car elevators while others scrounge for their next meal.

The original "why the hell does anybody care?" post:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/tpp/?_r=1

The later "it's somewhat bad" post:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0

I'm roughly where Krugman is: it's not a great deal, though the amount of outrage over it is kind of perplexing given how little daylight there is between it and our current bilaterals with the same countries.

It's not like anyone outside the talks and the lobbiest have a clue whats in it.

water comes to mind. Not only sue us, but be able to ignore any laws we put in place to protect us from their varied and multiple poisons and emissions.

Such trade deals are also job killers for blue collar people, but then again, those that work in suits as "professionals" don't appear to care about the fate of blue collar workers here, I am assuming you are such a one, am I correct?

that tariffs are only one chapter of the TPP. If it were only tariffs, I'd agree with him. But it is not. It is about restricting what kinds of laws we can make with respect to financial services, food safety, drug pricing, product labeling, agriculture, the environment, and a whole host of other things. Here is the text of the Korea FTA.

http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/final-text

Of particular interest might be Chapters 5 and 11.

And he clearly has not analyzed the investment and other chapters in the TPP. He just "assumes" they will come to nothing.

The Obama Administration is in fact bargaining in secret: comments by the former USTR (while he was still the USTR) here:

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/asian-market/2012/05/15/341092/Keeping-some.htm

And, it does impact democracy:

http://www.thenation.com/article/right-and-us-trade-law-invalidating-20th-century?page=0,5

Try reading Stiglitz analysis about what a bad idea these deals are:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/

It's fine for Krugman, who lives a life of luxury to say, these bad policies are "no big deal". They aren't to him. But they are going to be for those who lose jobs and wages -- see my earlier posts -- and their anti-democratic 'corporate courts' will be with us forever.

Instead of blindly reposting the same Krugman opinions over an over (and note they contain no analysis of the provisions of these agreements, just his conclusions), try expanding your repertoire . You might learn something.

(Although I expect he has access to some pretty good ones.)

"For any international agreement to have teeth (as opposed to be pretty words on a piece of paper), there has to be some type of independent enforcement mechanism."