Who has read the TPP? Congressman Sander Levin (D) & here's what he says~
In September 2014, Levin presented a Report to the Council on Foreign Relations reviewing the areas of debate and conflict in the TPP negotiations.
First, Levin emphasized that the Obama administration must respect the 10 May 2007 agreement on trade agreements negotiated between the US Congress and the Bush administration. This deal sought to protect workers’ rights, environmental protections, access to medicines, and human rights. The US Congressional Democrats have been aggrieved that Obama and his trade representatives have not honoured this deal: ‘That agreement is — and must remain — a bedrock principle within trade agreements.’
Second, Levin called for reciprocity in the TPP. He observed: ‘The TPP presents an enormously important opportunity to transform the trading relationship between the United States and those partners from something that in some cases looks like a one-way street to a fully reciprocal one with healthy flows that go both ways and create opportunities for everyone — the way trade is supposed to.’ Levin highlighted concerns about market access for agriculture, automobiles, currency manipulation, and state-owned enterprises.
Third, Levin stressed that there was a need to protect national sovereignty in the TPP, and the right to regulate. He commented: ‘Reaching for a high bar to increase standards of living, improve worker rights and strengthen environmental protections, and ensure that trade opportunities are reciprocal does not mean the United States gives up its right to regulate in all of the vitally important areas that affect our interests’. Levin was particularly interested in defending food safety rules, and tobacco control measures. He was also alarmed by the abuse of investor-state dispute settlement: ‘Investor-state disputes have proliferated in recent years and involve increasingly novel and costly challenges to public welfare and environmental regulations.’
Levin commented: ‘While the text must reflect these principles, the devil will be in the details of the text, in the annexes and the ‘non-conforming measures,’ and in the implementation of the obligations’. He stressed that ‘That is true in critical areas, including the environment, state-owned enterprises, labor rights, and a broad range of market access issues.’ Levin observed that, while ‘the quantity of increased trade is important’, ‘in this new era of globalization, the most important test is its quality, its potential impact on the lives of people’. Echoing the concerns of the economist Joseph Stiglitz about the TPP benefitting corporate elites — the 1% — he stressed: ‘The goal must be to ensure that the potential benefits of trade are spread broadly to the many, not just the few.’
Levin maintained that there was a need to ensure that the TPP contained appropriate safeguards in respect of labor rights, the environment, and public health. He recalled: ‘The May 10 structure, which I helped negotiate, was a major breakthrough on the rights of workers, environmental protections, and access to medicines, and it is vital that TPP build on them, not weaken them.’
Levin emphasized that there should be greater open and transparent democratic debate about the TPP: ‘We need more public input and debate on all of the mentioned issues, as well as intellectual property, food safety and investment.’...
https://medium.com/@DrRimmer/senator-elizabeth-warren-fights-the-white-house-over-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-3cd7bb0a1c91
uh-oh! a respected Democratic congressman said the goal of the TPP must not be to benefit only "the few"!
He must be like the lunatic fringe here on DU.
= new reply since forum marked as read
are for it, while Repubs are against it, for now. Therefore, it was argued, we should probably be FOR IT.
Democratic support for both treaties is stronger than that of Republicans: 60% of Democrats see TTIP as a good thing compared with 44% of Republicans, while 59% of Democrats look favorably on TPP compared with 49% of Republicans.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/
But the poll also showed that to Americans, the importance of trade issues ranks near the bottom of perceived priorities. Confirms we are collectively an ignorant bunch!!
for fast track authority. Is Hart Research also a "corporate-sponsored think tank which is paid to promulgate pro-"free trade" propaganda"? And, if so, why are you referencing it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026030956#post80
My post from the Pew poll shows a similar percentage of Democrats supporting fast track. Where is the disagreement?
On the issue of trade agreements, divisions within the Republican Party are again apparent. Staunch Conservatives are strongly opposed to granting the president fast-track authority: 76% oppose, only 22% favor. Moderate Republicans and Populist Republicans also oppose this proposal; however, their opposition is more muted. Among Moderate Republicans, 53% oppose, 43% favor; among Populists, 57% oppose, 35% favor.
Democratic groups are more united on this issue. Roughly 50% of Liberals, Socially Conservative Democrats and Partisan Poor favor fast track. New Democrats are more likely than any other typology group to endorse the idea — 61% favor.
http://www.people-press.org/1999/11/11/section-6-issues/
Is that because they produce poll results you don't like or do you have evidence or a link to back that up?
And if Pew is so "pro-'free trade'" why don't they produce a poll showing republican (not just Democratic) support for the idea? If (and this is a big IF) their goal was to promote 'free trade' would it not be more effective to produce fake results that showed large, bipartisan support for the idea?
Bush came into office when they essentially plateaued then rose again starting in 2009.
The bottom of the wage graph occurred in 1994-95. Wages have risen since then.
No they are not. Unless you consider republicans to be liberals and Democrats to be conservatives.
59% of Democrats think the TPP is a "good thing" while 49% of republicans feel the same.
Last edited Mon Jan 5, 2015, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)
... saying anything.
He's clearly an unserious person that has succumbed to FUD since no final version of the TPP has been made.
Don't criticize!
Edited b/c I initially thought this was Senator Levin.
be spreading FUD.
....as long as Obama doesn't do anything cute this weekend, of course.
He's cute to me!! 
This:
"The goal must be to ensure that the potential benefits of trade are spread broadly to the many, not just the few."
is political speak for:
"I read the TPP text and the middle class and below are fucked."
And this:
Reaching for a high bar to increase standards of living, improve worker rights and strengthen environmental protections, and ensure that trade opportunities are reciprocal does not mean the United States gives up its right to regulate in all of the vitally important areas that affect our interests’
is political speak for:
The TPP fucks the environment so we can compete with China like this:
Rep. Gary Peters succeeds him.
Can't have people messing with the spin!
That's what someone here basically called us 99% people, going on about the 1%. So that was my motivation for the post on the article I'd read, to prove we're actually like normal Democrats who are paying attention.
2 cylinders since Christmas. Caught something that has flattened me out since the day after Christmas and today I'm just starting to get better and think of other things besides trying to get air in me and if I'm actually going to get some sleep for longer than 3 hour chunks.
Sorry I missed your "Sarcasm"
We're on the same side on this. I knew that Phlem.
I appreciate it.
From what I understand, if that's what happens, there's no change to it's current form, no debate, no editing, it goes the way it is.
Which would be god awful.
Full respect for you Recursion but I'm not biting. Nafta ruined me.
But go ahead and keep telling that to yourself and try selling it as anything else. Nafta wasn't supposed to be so bad either.
"Personally I don't think trade deals or a lack thereof will solve our economic problems."
Exactly and I have a very very strong suspicion that this will exacerbate the situation for the worst. So I don't want it in it's current form. As a matter of fact I don't want it period.
"We like to blame trade but history shows that it is progressive taxation, support for unions, effective corporate regulation and an adequate safety net that produces strong middle classes. "
All good points but trade deals are not written for the people to benefit from, more like the 1% or huge corporations. And this one will sink us. It needs to be flushed, it has no bearing on the citizens of our country except to make things worse. It's needs to be set on Fire, and Nuked 3 times, only to finally land in cargo of a one way missile to the sun.
that was the shill keeping us from seeing the barker pick our pockets!
