The 'articles' like this one are not from sites that I am familiar with.

The administration has a web site addressing the negotiations, why is it that we don't believe they are trying to make it transparent? I think the president has been pretty above board so far on other issues. Why should we believe that he is suddenly trying to be real sneaky?

Is it because they haven't released any information about the negotiations? It's easy to be negative about the proposals put forward in negotiations; because everyone is trying to get the most for themselves. There is time after negotiations to fine tune agreements, in a more public forum.

I'm still waiting for more information from sources I'm familiar with before I go all negative on the administration on TPP.

how are they under the radar

Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch:

Hard not to try to address what is in those negotiations that were leaked, such as handing over control of of US laws, to foreign Corporations. Do you support foreign Corps making decisions about OUR environment, being able to over-rule our hard-fought-for environmental protection legislation?

And that's just ONE of many seriously disturbing elements of these 'agreements'. Not to mention that CONGRESS was kept out of the loop on these negotiations.

Do you think Congress should have nothing to say about Foreign Entities being given more power over OUR country's issues, than Congress itself has?

I think you need to read up on what is at stake here. I absolutely hope the Obama administration had nothing to do with this. It is the worst violation of trust we have seen in a long, long time, if ever.

In 2010 TPP countries agreed not to release negotiating texts until four years after agreement is finished. Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the Senate committee with official jurisdiction over TPP, has been denied access even to US proposals to the negotiations. But 600 corporate representatives serving as official US trade advisers have full access to TPP texts and a special role in negotiations.

This kind of secrecy is not a good thing or even a common thing in past trade negotiations.

entities who have absolutely no right to be even suggesting, let alone apparently WRITING laws for this country, WITHOUT Congress' knowledge. Congress was BARRED from getting this information and in fact did not know what was going on. When the leak occurred, Sen. Levin, head of the Free Trade Committee, demanded access to these negotiations. He was denied that access. This is outrageous. Who is running this country is the question this leak among other revelations, that badly needs to be answered. As on observer said, 'this makes the cliche 'selling the country down the river' no longer a cliche, but a fact.

This whole thing needs to be thoroughly investigated. Since when is it okay for foreign Corporations to interfere with the laws of the US to benefit THEIR bottom line?

The questions this raises go back to 'deals' that have been made in the past also. The Longshoremen, eg, who found out that Foreign Corps had been given rights to US ports which allowed them to fire US Union workers whose livlihoods have depended on their working on those docks for generations. The Foreign Corps reneged on 'promises' that they would not fire US workers, but as soon as they got what they wanted, access to US ports, that is exactly what they set out to do. How did that happen? Since when does a foreign Corporation get to take over US property and then run Americans off the property and out of their jobs?

These leaks are just the tip of an iceberg that many have been wondering about for a long, long time, and if Congress is worth anything anymore, if they care about THIS country, they will begin an investigation as to who these people are and how they have come to have so much power over the lives and property of US Citizens AND our laws, environmental and otherwise.

There really is no way to try to minimize the significance of what has been revealed frankly.

country. Please show me where in the Constitution foreign Corporations have a right to do the job intended for Congress?

Are you serious, really? Unbelievable.

people authorized by the will of the People to write and vote on and pass legislation for the common good of THIS COUNTRY.

Since WHEN, and I really am asking you to provide me with some solid facts here because I have not found them anywhere, since when did this country cede Congress' right to legislate to Foreign Corporations? Were we invaded and we lost?? Explain please!

What you are saying is only confirming everything that is wrong about this. You are okay with Foreign Entities writing US Law and then submitting these laws for the expected rubber stamp approval by enough bought and paid for Teabaggers and Blue Dogs??

I want to see from you how this in any way represents any part of the US Constitution, which last I heard, was still the law of the land.

Countries want input from groups they can do that. The congress in this country then votes on the final agreement. We are part of the world and we enter into agreements with other countries. And those agreements are agreed to by congress just like every other law. You can not tell the other countries who they can and can't get input from and neither can our congress. It seems many of you don't like that we are part of the world and engage them but we do and you can't stop the future.

we would still have no idea what plans these Foreign Corps had for the American people. What is it you are not getting about this? We have no treaty with Commercial Corps to allow them to write legislation for this country. Please point me in the direction of when we gave up our sovereignty to Global Corps.

The only question that remains is how many other secret legislation is being written for America by foreign Corporations? Amazing that you find this to be okay, seriously. I doubt the American people in general will be as blase about it.

documents?

Do you want both he and Ambassador Kirk held in contempt of congress?

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html

He was excluded from the process and had no idea what the agreement contained until details leaked out.

Hopefully your rofl guy is just having a seizure or something because this issue really isn't funny at all.

President Obama must not think so, or there is no reason he'd be doing it.

So I think there is an open issue there.

Or in the case of the three Bush/Obama agreements signed last year, weren't projected to destroy hundreds of thousands of US jobs by every disinterested group who reviewed it?

it works that they allegedly kill jobs. The recession occurred in 2008. It would have been sooner if NAFTA were involved. Too often on DU we are to assume this without understanding it. It is those who want our hair on fire about it who needs to explain.

According to EPI: http://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf

Almost-free trade with China was much worse still.

On page 4 NAFTA has devastating effects on the Mexican economy.

Page 4 Mexico has also lost jobs.

Yet on page 6 the US corporations are outsourcing to Mexico.

But what is the connection between removing tariffs and creating a free trade area and these inconsistent problems? Both Mexico and the US are worse off, but it because of NAFTA or something else? How did creating this free trade area lead directing to the problems?

How is this possible????

Or do you think a corporation becoming richer means a better life for the workers?

I was talking about an article you have not read.

It is inconsistent, claiming we've lost jobs to Mexico but on another page, Mexico has lost jobs.

And there is nothing to connect it to NAFTA.

If you expect people to argue this point, they have to understand it.

ETA: President Clinton signed NAFTA into law, so I believe he thought it would have good results. If he was mistaken, whoever says that needs to explain just how created a free trade area out of these three countries is partly responsible for economic problems that arose subsequently.

We often blame those problems on Bush and the tax cuts, too.

a counter-argument.

To the extent you are sincere you need to use the internet to educate yourself in these matters.

You have not provided the requested explanation. Or responded to any point I made.

I don't know why I'm to be against free trade. Or why people like Clinton and Obama, whom I think would not sign things that they knew would harm the economy, think it's OK.

You're not going to win an argument without an explanation other than: "you are ignorant." You need to add something.

What is it? Stop with the personal shit and make a solid argument that free trade causes all the problems it allegedly does, and why then do these deals pass Congress and get signed by Dem Presidents? That is the question.

NAFTA largely exists to legalize what used to be called dumping, it's just negotiated dumping across multiple sectors and multiple nations.

We kill the Mexican farmers by dumping our massively subsidized agricultural products, they get a nice piece of our former manufacturing sector so that Mexicans that had no jobs can have really brutally awful jobs for subsistence wages.

The common thread and only goal is that the corporations make ever higher profits for doing nothing more. These trade agreements are written by the corporations for the corporations, period.

that would have been created here by U.S. companies.

The whole Ford Fusion operation started in Mexico after NAFTA and many suppliers have moved their plants down there too, to be closer to Ford. Ford doesn't pay anything close to UAW entry wage and benefits, which are running about $15 an hour with a mediocre medical plan and a 401(k).

Monterrey, Mexico, is a big manufacturing center that has grown quite a bit since NAFTA.

I keep thinking that we in the U.S. will end up spending many, many dollars keeping those U.S. plants safe from internal Mexican problems in the future, and that we're spending more than we know now just to keep those plants in cheap labor.

"One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."

Oops!


TPP has been referred to as "NAFTA on Steriods".

Why does creating a free trade area with Mexico and Canada in itself lead to economic decline?

What even if the TPP? What does it do? Create a free trade area with what countries?

Why would Obama sign a treaty that he thinks is going to cause American job decline? Maybe it is different in some way.

"Free trade" means that all jobs but the top go to the country with the workers that can do the work at the lowest wage. Sometimes we end up with cheaper toys, but often products are cheap and of lesser quality.

People here who used to make stuff become unemployed for long periods or end up with much lesser paying jobs.

Capital, i.e. equipment and money end up in the cheaper countries.

We end up with crapier jobs and fewer of them.

Oh yes, from the date that the trade agreement is effective going forward, all future investment is made directly in the lower wage country.

Other factors that many low wage countries have that entices manufacturing employers are lack of or lack of enforcement of environmental protection laws, workplace safety laws and wage and hour (overtime and breaks) laws.

I cannot believe that you have as many posts as you do and either cannot recite this in your sleep.

By whom? If I refer to Facebook as 'A waste of time on steroids' does that make it so.

That's exactly what I was referring to in the post at the very top of this thread; you can find whatever you want on the Internet.

Since when does it become true just because you read it somewhere?

Just because Obama said it while campaigning; doesn't necessarily make it true either.

Statisticians come to all different kinds of conclusions. There are too many variables that lead to job loss or job creation to point to a definite cause. Very often people point to a statistic that they believe to be true; when it is really just one possible interpretation of the data.

A lot of companies figure it is more profitable to move production overseas and employ cheap labor.

Yet there are now no tariffs on our products to Mexico, so Mexicans are more likely to buy our products and Canadian products.

We need to understand why this was a bad thing in order to be able to argue it. It seems most with their hair on fire on this subject don't know why. Just railing against "the corporations" doesn't explain it.

We need to know why it was NAFTA or to what extent it was due to NAFTA. Or to free trade. We're told free trade is evil, but there's no point in taking that stance if we can't explain it.

I can understand why jobs would go to Mexico but in the end we would be hoping Mexico's standard of living would come up to ours. And Mexico is nearby. I still am astonished that companies can make things cheaper in China, which is so far away, transport costs should cancel it out.

If Mexico were to become like the US and Canada, however, things would be wonderful.

reason.

Make your argument. You keep dodging that.

this very thread first, then you can demand more.

Tell the other person to read a lot of stuff?

Is that how people can win votes? No, they have to explain.

I looked at one link but it was all conclusory - no explanation. If you understand it yourself, you should be able to articulate it.

Why does a free trade area lead inevitably to economic decline and how much does it involve that versus other factors? Did the housing bubble occur because of NAFTA? How can that be explained?

you can't learn anything.

matter is the same as an argument.

Nothing can pass Congress that is not public.

Public? Hardly.

leaked regarding those negotiations? Do you want to give up this country's power over, eg, legislation regarding our environment to foreign Corporations? Do you want a foreign legal body to have more power over this country's issues than Congress has?

being made public?

95% of the public knew absolutely NOTHING about CAFTA and the leftover Bush agreements Obama supported. When CAFTA was being debated during the Bush years I must have asked about 20 friends and relatives what they thought about it, and not a single one knew a damn thing about it.

The giant corporations and billionaires that control the media make a killing off these fake free trade deals, so all they will give us the same generic talking points promoting this disaster.

That was before NAFTA, though.

And many of my "Democratic", neighbors were out purchasing imported cars while I was laid off.

So understandably some of us have a different take on this.

Don

Many of my UAW neighbors lost their jobs to automation. Detroit hasn't been the same since.

And sadly many people could not change with it, and the type of industry that the world has, does not need as many blue collar workers.

Of all the start ups I've seen lately, they deal in information.. not products. And this is billions of dollars annually. They can be run with a small staff of some programmers, customers service, and marketing.

The World changed, too... and this conversation is much like what happened when America first introduced automation of any kind. Sort of how the blacksmiths felt, I bet.

Are you aware of what is in these 'agreements' regarding who will be given more power than the US Congress over, eg, our environmental laws? Are you happy to have Foreign Corps making the rules for this country based on THEIR needs?

I think you better go read what has been leaked regarding these agreements. Sounds to me like they make 'selling the country down the river' a true statement rather than what we used to use it for.

than the outsourcing of jobs. I think people have not been reading what this is about or I doubt they would be so cavalier about it. Unless of course you don't mind the literal selling of this country to Foreign Corps who would have the power to over-rule our own laws, and Congress would have no say in it. Congress eg, was not aware of these 'agreements'. Do you think Foreign Corps should be planning for this country's future without the knowledge of Congress?

even with the knowledge of congress, because it seems that congresscritters are merely corporate employees.

Gas is probably 50c a gallon there.

And it was from Humble and there was always Sinclair. You know, with the friendly, smiling green brontosaurus.

I hated it when they scrapped that sweet guy. Sniffle.

But then, when Humble turned into EXXON, they gave me a nice fluffly tiger tail for my tank.

Geeze, lighten up a little. Oh, and get off my lawn!

the deal that is being worked on regulates that trade. Trade regulations are inherently the job of the president, and Obama has a very good record so far on managing things toward higher exports - http://news.yahoo.com/u-exports-march-hit-record-high-186-8-191608747.html

TPP will give multinational corporations and private investors the right to sue nations in private tribunals. These tribunals have
the power to overturn environmental, labor, or any other laws that limit profit, awarding taxpayer funded damages.


What does that have to do with exports?

which has been a generally effective means for resolving disputes between trade partners - mostly things like "dumping" products below costs to grab up a competitors customers, or copyright violations and piracy. For the most part, without trade agreements, regulations, and a means to enforce them, the kinds of problem we see traditionally all hurt the US market.

It has a great deal to do with exports, as that supports US manufacturing. Obama's goal has been to double the value of US exports by 2015, and (somewhat quietly) he is on track to succeed in that goal. Something like 500,000 of the 4 million+ new jobs created under Obama are related to increased US exports.

not directly between multi-national corporations and countries. Through the WTO Multi-Nationals and investors can not dispute United States environmental laws.

industry. The distinction between corporations and nations is largely arbitrary, in such cases.

See, for example:

...and isolationism is one way to keep the US jobless. We still make a lot of things here that are successfully exported, and a great many jobs depend on that. Job losses have two primary causes - technological advances (accounting for about 3/4 of manufacturing job losses), and crappy trade deals that encouraged imports but not exports.

Obama has a very good record on trade, and this one is designed to bolster US exports and employment. Trade itself is not the problem, and the meme that "we can't compete" is a RW slur that way too many people have bought into without really thinking it through.

what is being discussed is the framework for regulated trade.

benefit of transnational capital, at the expense of national capital. 'regulated' to undermine democratic process and national sovereignty.

triple-crap.

it's 'free trade'. the kind of 'regulation' is the same as that which started the american revolution: the british east india company didn't have to pay taxes on their tea trade, the local boys did. those 'regulations' were made by the british east india company.

same thing today. corporations writing the law.

Which he is not, as his record on trade shows very well.

...which again goes counter to his record. And, again, "free trade" is not what is being discussed - what is being discussed is a framework for regulated trade.

Perhaps the difference in perspective is that I grew up in the NW, where trade is a vital part of the economy and supports thousands of good jobs and a great deal of manufacturing. Problems arise and fester when trade is unregulated, where there are no means to settle disputes, and where unfair practices can't be challenged. Trade agreements are generally there to address those problems.

existed *everywhere*. trade is not the problem.

and I agree that free trade is crap.

Which is why we need good trade regulations and agreements!

this either have not read what this is all about, or they are in favor of replacing Congress with Foreign Corporations.

Those tribunals would be dealing with private contracts, not government regulations.

Never really understood the point of people coming here and tearing down the Democratic candidate. What is our alternative? Ron Paul?

Do you have any idea why the US has suspended the Rule of Law for certain people?

We know now beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was crime involved in the Financial Meltdown, which was up to now, considered to be one of the biggest 'bank heists in history'. But now we are learning, each day, that there is more and that what we are finding out makes the 2008 meltdown look like a misdemeanor by comparison.

But not one person has gone to jail or even been prosecuted for these massive crimes that have affected billions of ordinary people world wide.

What do you think ought to be done about these criminals, to keep their ill-gotten money out of our political system?

Now we find out, thanks only to a whistle-blower, that things are even worse again than we thought. That secret negotiations were going on that would give Foreign Corporations more power in this country than Congress.

You seem to be saying that we should close our eyes to all these crimes. That we should not speak about our country being handed over to foreign Corporations and your reason is the same old reason that GOT US HERE! 'There's an election coming up'!! Is an election more important than the country being robbed, than power over the US Congress being handed to foreign Corporations? At what point do we let our elected officials know we want something done about all of this.

There are always elections coming up, so you tell us when we should squeeze in these 'concerns' because my recollection is over the past decade that there is never a good time, and that the criminals know this and know they have nothing to worry about. So things keep getting worse.

I am interested in your solution to dealing with these massive crimes that may lead us into an even worse Global Collapse even as the revelations keep pouring out.

"could blunt the Obama campaigns strategy of highlighting Romney/Bain offshoring by blurring the lines between the two candidates "

...this is what we want. So let's make up false equivalencies about pending trade agreements to claim a hypothetical about a trade agreement's potential to be exploited by companies that want to ship jobs overseas is the same as Romney's work at Bain to ship jobs overseas.

See the fucking differences?

Dear voters: Obama = Romney because some asshole like Romney may ship jobs overseas because a pending trade deal likely will possibly enable such an asshole, hypothetically.

That means influencing policy that influences our lives.

Does that make sense?

Of course there is "evidence to suggest that Obama would support a deal that would lead to jobs being shipped overseas"--the President broken promise on NAFTA being a major piece of evidence, and the President's own "Free Trade" with Korea deal being another.

In 2012, Obama is running against Romney. That is the reality.

You want to PLAY ... then you need to start forming the narrative for the next Prez election, and that's 2016.

There are many here on DU who complain about Obama, but I have yet to see any of them accept the reality that he is our candidate in 2012, and that if they want to "fix things" they need to get busy NOW for 2016.

Complaining about Obama 6 months out from the general election is not an effective approach. Trying to influence elections in the future is what needs to happen.

a group to discuss who Dems should support in 2016 given that we already know who to vote for in 2012.

Of course you can keep complaining about Obama all you want, and that reality doesn't change any.

I mean, except for those occasions just after unpopular legislation is passed, when we're all berated for having 'failed to push the President hard enough'.

From what I've read in the leaked TPP documents foreign corporations will be getting diplomatic immunity, or amnesty if you choose to see it that way.

It seems to me that they'll be able to live here under the conditions and laws of their home country and sue our own government for damages if we enforce our own laws.

Maybe I've got it all wrong but this agreement appears to be on a fast track and the public can only guess at the full contents. We'll never know until it's too late unless the administration follows through on it's promises of transparency.

ACA, Lilly Ledbetter, LGBT rights etc. are all just crumbs thrown at us to distract us while all along the PTB fuck us over and over and over. Obama talks some good shit, but behind closed doors he's shaking hands and making deals with the money people and the corporations. He talked a good fight during his run to the presidency and as soon as he got the nod here in Denver it was "Now is not the time to point fingers." and let us not forget this gem " What Wall St. did might have been immoral, but hey committed no crime." and on and on and on. let me ask once again, how much more of a fucking are you going to take before you are willing to take to the streets in mass protest????

Nothing to do with the merits. TPP is another job-killer and an amazing corporate power grab to boot. But Romney will not make it an issue because the people that own him won't let him make an issue out of it. They are happier flying beneath the radar. Mitt's mitts are tied on this one. He'll take his Bain outsourcing lumps for now and hope to score points in a later round on another issue.

We all damned well ought able to spell it by now.

Occupy. Voting is not enough anymore when both parties are flooded with corporate money.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626

Occupy