Fast-Track Treason and the Coming Corporate Coup: Calling Out TPP Traitors

[99th_Monkey]

The Oligarch's draconian end-game is now in-the-works. Will the public wake up in time to stop it?

Fast-Track Treason and the Coming Corporate Coup
Thursday, 19 February 2015 00:00 * By Rivera Sun, Truthout | Op-Ed * Truthout

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement usurps federal, state and local authority, and functions as a global corporate coup.

Corporations aren't people - otherwise, we'd be trying them for treason. If it were known that a handful of powerful men and women were meeting in secret to overthrow the authority of the US government and make this nation submissive to external domination, the NSA, CIA, FBI, US president, Congress and the military-industrial complex would declare them "terrorists of the year" and bomb them back into the Stone Age.

But corporations aren't people. They enjoy superhuman status, and are awarded privileges and protections well beyond what ordinary citizens of the United States can expect. (The last time a corporation was shot dead in the streets by a police officer was - well, never.) Corporations are given preferential treatment by judges, laws, politicians, investigators, tax agencies, financial institutions and much of our consumer-capitalist society.

So, when corporations spend years in secret negotiations to set up a trade agreement that gives them the legal power to overrule federal, state and local laws, subjugating not only the United States, but also the rest of the world to their control, our Congress lines up to help them.

This is treason by another name. It's called fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Congress, on the whole, has not seen the secret, thousand-page text of the TPP. Yet, congressional members are curiously willing to eschew their right and responsibility to review this international trade treaty and fast-track the legislation without debate or revision. If they vote to fast-track the TPP, they are silencing the people and handing the nation over on a silver platter to corporate domination.

In addition to stating trade rules, the TPP also sets up a corporate-run international tribunal court whose legal task is to overrule federal, state and local laws that restrict trade or give one nation an "unfair advantage" over another. Don't be fooled by the altruistic-sounding phrase: What this really means is that all labor, environmental, health and safety laws would be reduced to the lowest common denominator. Say hello to lead poisoning and sweatshops. Say goodbye to health benefits and living wages. Also, city zoning laws that keep industrial developments from lowering the value of your home can be gutted by this tribunal court. Factory farms and sludge fields can move in next door. Toxic plants can be located next to the schoolyard. Gone are the fracking bans and GMO-labeling laws we worked so hard to pass. One hundred and fifty years of labor history is being thrown in the gutter by the regressive nature of the TPP.

Also alarming is the possibility that TPP sections would allow venomous attacks on public assets like schools, water district utilities, parks, bridges, roads, public banks, buses and social programs. Regarded as awarding an "unfair advantage" to those enterprises via government support, the TPP would allow the feeding frenzy to privatize public assets to reach a new height. If the TPP is passed, it is only a matter of time before we, the people, own nothing and they, the private individuals and corporations, own everything.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29187-fast-track-treason-and-the-coming-corporate-coup

[Hoyt]

1. Let's be real -- As of yet, Obama does not have Fast-Track authority, and he won't likely get it.

Further, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will likely be part of the 2016 election debates. The OP-Ed also greatly exaggerates the Tribunal process, which even the European Union uses.

I'm still convinced Obama will not endorse a final agreement that sells us down the river. I know there are plenty who thought he'd gut Social Security, push the pipeline, work against net neutrality, etc., but he hasn't.

I believe him when he responded to Matt Yglesias the other day by saying: "Where Americans have a legitimate reason to be concerned is that in part this rise has taken place on the backs of an international system in which China wasn't carrying its own weight or following the rules of the road and we were, and in some cases we got the short end of the stick. This is part of the debate that we're having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we've been negotiating. There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, 'Why would we want another trade deal that hasn't been good for American workers? It allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China and then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got cheaper sneakers, but we also lost all our jobs.'"

"And my argument is two-fold. Number one: precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we're trying to deal with right now is, can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it's fairer, because right now it's not fair, and if you want to improve it, that means we need a new trading regime. We can't just rely on the old one because the old one isn't working for us."

"But the second reason it's important is because the countries we're negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. And if we don't write the rules out there, China's going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged. Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged. So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged. Why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal. It doesn't mean that we're still not going to see wage differentials between us and them, but they're already selling here for the most part. And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the game in a place that we've got to be. . . . . . ."

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript

Again, I'll wait till there is something formal to review. Merely wanting to see if one can negotiate an agreement that helps us and other countries is not a conspiracy, especially when those other countries have to approve it too.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. +1 ...

But you are either uninformed or deluding yourself because waiting for something formal is proof positive that you support this economic Armageddon for the American worker!!!

Or something like that.

[99th_Monkey]

5. If this trade deal is so awesome and clearly necessary, why all the secrecy

why was it written in dark back-rooms by our corporate Oligarchs, and why does it remain closeted away from public scrutiny to this very day?

You say the op-ed "greatly exaggerates the Tribunal process", but how can we even begin to have an intelligent conversation about that, to sort out fact from fantasy, when the deal's still mostly still hidden away from public view and verification?

[Hoyt]

9. It's not finished. Tribunal process will likely be same as that in other trade deals

including European union agreement.

If you were in negotiations, would you offer up your best terms if you thought our Congress was going to pick it apart or every conspiracy theorist or Obama basher, with an axe to grind, would exaggerate things for their own gain. I think not.

I see no legitimate reason to mistrust Obama on this.

[99th_Monkey]

10. Well, I would rather Obama does it than Jeb Bush or H. Clinton

Problem is, I don't want any part of it until it's fully & publicly vetted by
elected Congress peeps, unions, environmentalists and We The People.
Is Obama going to make^sure^this^happens?

[Hoyt]

12. It will be when finished, even under fast-track Congress must approve, and

all the other nations have to approve the same terms. And that's assuming it is completed, which is questionable.

[99th_Monkey]

15. "Once it's completed"

^do you mean completed as in the FINAL draft "in stone" to THEN be considered and openly debated in Congress by our elected officials

OR

do you mean competed late one night, to be fast-tracked the next morning w/ virtually NO debate or discussion allowed?

[Hoyt]

17. Doesn't work like the latter, but keep exaggerating.

[aspirant]

21. Does it work like the former or a Third Way?

[Hoyt]

23. I would suggest looking it up, you might feel a little better about what MIGHT happen, assuming

Congress would even give Obama Fast-Track authority and Obama would endorse the agreement in the first place.

[aspirant]

24. In the second place

if Fast Track is approved you are saying that Obama is undecided on TPP?

[Hoyt]

26. I'm saying what Obama said, he's seeing what he can get.

If you read what he said to Matt Yglesias the other day, you'd know: "Where Americans have a legitimate reason to be concerned is that in part this rise has taken place on the backs of an international system in which China wasn't carrying its own weight or following the rules of the road and we were, and in some cases we got the short end of the stick. This is part of the debate that we're having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we've been negotiating. There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, 'Why would we want another trade deal that hasn't been good for American workers? It allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China and then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got cheaper sneakers, but we also lost all our jobs.'"

"And my argument is two-fold. Number one: precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we're trying to deal with right now is, can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it's fairer, because right now it's not fair, and if you want to improve it, that means we need a new trading regime. We can't just rely on the old one because the old one isn't working for us."

"But the second reason it's important is because the countries we're negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. And if we don't write the rules out there, China's going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged.

"Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged. So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged. Why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal. It doesn't mean that we're still not going to see wage differentials between us and them, but they're already selling here for the most part. And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the game in a place that we've got to be. . . . . . ."

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript

In the past couple of years, I've read here how Obama was going to gut Social Security, he was going to push the pipeline through, he was against net neutrality, etc. None of that happened. I believe he won't sell us down the river here either.

[aspirant]

30. So

you have gone from Obama possibly endorsing this deal...TO ... it's vital and Obama knows and supports it.

Now to Fast Track. Does Obama BELIEVE that the people and our Elected Reps have the right and responsibility to examine and amend the FINAL DRAFT as proposed by 99Monkey or do you recommend a Third Way?

[Hoyt]

32. A good deal IS vital to our future. A bad deal isn't.

Not sure what your second question is, maybe you can clarify. Your elected officials will have a chance to review the final draft. So will you. If it is not fast-tracked they can take 300 years debating where to put commas and such.

[aspirant]

33. Upon final draft

do you and Obama support non-amendable Fast Track?

[Hoyt]

34. If it's a GOOD agreement, it wouldn't bother me. I'd hate to miss out on

a good agreement because our current Congress can't see the forest for the trees, or just hates Obama too much to let him succeed.

[aspirant]

38. Is a treasonous agreement a good deal?

[Hoyt]

40. Exaggerate much? If you want healthcare, safety nets, education, etc., long term,

you need to accept this is the 21st century. Things are changing. Fortunately Obama gets it and is still trying to make things better for us. I hope he just doesn't say, "screw it, these folks don't get the stakes and are going to blame me, no matter what I do."

[aspirant]

43. Exaggerate a lot?

The 21st century, how are things changing?

Does Obama understand sovereignty rights?

How does corporate sovereignty "make things better for us"?

Which "folks don't get the stakes". Are they the American folks?

If he made the deal public, do you think the "FOLKS" would still blame him?

"screw it" is that how you think Obama Talks about us?

[Hoyt]

48. Read up on tribunals and the types of cases involved.

Has nothing to do with "sovereignity." Everytime I hear that word, it reminds me of some states rights folks complaining about the Civil Rights Act.

Here's the typical tribunal case under NAFTA - http://m.state.gov/md230995.htm

The deal will be public when it's finalized, and before approved/disapproved . The various countries are still working on it. If they come to agreement, you'll be able to read every word and conjure up thousands of ways it's going to screw you.

[aspirant]

51. Please explain

when you "overrule federal, state and local laws" why you are not violating the sovereignty of the people.

"before approved/disapproved" Where is Fast Track?

[Hoyt]

54. It's time you research this yourself. Or, just keep fretting and spreading junk.

[aspirant]

70. Do you think

TREASON against America is junk?

Why do you hate America?

[Hoyt]

71. This is not treason. Do you even know what that means?

[aspirant]

72. "override federal,state and local laws" says OP

I'm sure it includes hating America, Why do you hate AMERICA?

[Hoyt]

73. The tribunals don't override "federal, state and local laws." Would like to see an example if

you can find one. You can't.

[aspirant]

76. TPP isn't passed yet (NAFTA on steriods)

Do you believe in treason and why do you hate America?

[Hoyt]

77. Tribunals are the same. "On steriods" means Mexico, Canada PLUS other countries.

I don't hate America, but I don't believe we can say the hell with the rest of the world either.

[aspirant]

83. If America doesn't come first to you,

then you hate America.

"tribunals...are quite limited" your post#42. Please refer me to the page # in the TPP agreement that guarantees any and all limitations.

Tribunals that "override federal state and local laws" are treason

[Hoyt]

84. Please show me one case where a tribunal has overridden "federal, state or local" law..

You can't.

America First is what got us in Vietnam, Iraq, etc. We no longer rule the world, nor should we. The world will pass us by if myopic folks like you prevail.

[aspirant]

88. I'm waiting for your TPP page # that defines tribunals

Please put on your reading glasses and get that page #.

American lives and jobs shouldn't come first, why do you hate the American worker.

[Hoyt]

89. Not finished yet (which you know), but no nation is going to agree to what you are spreading.

The tribunals will be like in NAFTA, the European Union trade agreements, and other trade agreements.

[aspirant]

90. How do you know

what the tribunals will be like in TPP if you can't find the page?

Would the American Nation agree with spreading the truth? Why do you hate the truth.

[Hoyt]

91. No nation is going to agree to the BS you are spreading.

So, if you really believe that's how the TPP would work, you can quit worrying. It will never be ratified by ANY country.

[aspirant]

93. Is one person's BS

another person's truth?

"never be ratified by ANY country" I thought Obama was a big supporter, Why do you HATE Obama?

[cascadiance]

167. Yes we can, you obviously didn't study why we can't have dolphin safe tuna labels, huh?

... The WTO overturned U.S. laws then in ruling that we couldn't have regulations specifying which cans of tuna were retrieved in nets, etc. according to regulatory rules that would entitle them to be labeled as "dolphin safe", because it lead to those that couldn't comply with these rules from being able to sell to us.

This time around TPP tribunals will be used to get rid of GMO labeling and other GMO regulatory laws in the same fashion for corporate "friends" that pay government officials a lot of money. Those laws here in Oregon's Jackson and Josephine county restricting GMO crops there would be flushed by the wayside with TPP in place. And we needn't even try to put another GMO labeling measure on the ballot that needed records amount of money spent against it to get it narrowly voted down here. The GMO industry would just go to TPP tribunal instead and basically tell us that we don't have any rights over knowing what we eat, because THEY make our laws instead of our government!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/us-usa-mexico-trade-idUSBRE84F1EY20120516

[Hoyt]

172. As you will see from subsequent appeals, US law was not overturned. The dispute

was interpreted from both parties perspective and has been handled without overturning any law.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds381_e.htm

There's a big difference.

[pampango]

107. "If America doesn't come first to you, then you hate America." USA! USA! USA!

If Ohio does not come first to me, do I hate Ohio? If whites do not come first, do I hate whites? If straights do not come first with me, do I hate straights?

Some liberals can actually support pursuing a greater good rather than what is good for the 'home team' only.

[aspirant]

111. Oh so the American people should come second third ,last

If the TPP makes the corporations sovereign(your greater good), We The People(Americans) should know our lowly place and accept it.

"What is good for the home team" = Poverty, despair, unemployment, homelessness in your humble opinion.

TPP is treason and if Ohio is ratifying treason you'll have plenty of reasons to hate it.

[pampango]

112. Of course not. No more than whites, men, straights, etc. should come second, third or last.

Of course, they should not automatically come first either.

TPP is treason ...

So you're not just disagreeing with Obama, you are accusing him of treason. Perhaps the tea party is right after all when they accuse him of treason.

[aspirant]

114. So in what place

should our American home team be?

[pampango]

117. Why does there have to be a 'place' for Blacks, gays, women or the "American home team"?

[aspirant]

120. Do you know your place?

Is it with N Korea or maybe alongside the global corporatists that call tax havens home.

[pampango]

146. My 'place' is shared with everyone regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality or sexual

orientation. How about yours? Is it above those born different than you in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation?

[aspirant]

151. My place is with the People

If your with the TPP corporatist crowd, the people have no place.

I'm glad you have seen the light and rejected the treasonous TPP.

[Enthusiast]

98. It is precisely treason.

[pampango]

35. Aren't international agreements usually 'non-amendable' in congress?

Will republicans in congress get to pick apart and renegotiate any agreement Obama reaches with Iran? Or will they have to accept it or reject it as is?

[aspirant]

37. It's the TPP treason, not Iran

"usually" means nothing.

[pampango]

45. So some international agreements are 'non-amendable' and some are not?

Who decides which are and which are not? The executive branch always does the negotiating - whether it is a trade agreement or environmental agreements with China and India or the diplomatic agreement with Cuba or the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. Who decides which of these can be renegotiated by congress?

[aspirant]

47. The people and their employees,

the Representatives

ALL international agreements are amendable unless we give up our rights.

[whathehell]

58. Thank you..

The TPP is a VERY bad deal.

[pampango]

99. "ALL international agreements are amendable ..." Not they are not.

Do you think that Iran would negotiate with us if they thought that Boehner and McConnell get to change whatever they want once the agreement hits congress? Why should Iran bargain with Obama? Shouldn't they invite those two republicans to the negotiations?

The Chemical Weapons Convention was ratified without amendment. So were the several Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties. So were many, many other international agreements. Several pending international agreements, such as the one on Disability Rights and one on the Arms Trade have not been ratified by congress.

We don't "give up our rights" when the executive does his or her job and negotiates international agreements and sends them to congress for ratification or rejection. There is a long list of international agreements that have been adopted just like this at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties#2000.E2.80.93current

The people and their employees, the Representatives

I heartily agree. Of course, the majority of Democrats outside of DC think the TPP is a good idea while most republicans do not like it.

[aspirant]

104. "Except when we give away our rights" Full quote please

Which agreements have been ratified by Executive Order without any action from congress?

"TPP is a good idea" you mean these opinion surveys that are estimates or guesses at best?

All negotiations should be conducted dependent upon the American peoples consent. We don't have dictators.

[pampango]

106. ""TPP is a good idea" you mean these opinion surveys that are estimates or guesses at best?"

Undoubtedly, but the polls show attitudes and opinions at one point in time. In this case they show that Democrats think the TPP is a 'good idea'. They are rarely based on perfect knowledge and can change as knowledge and circumstances change.

Those of us in congress rarely have as much information as those in congress but we are entitled to have an opinion and to see that opinion reflected in congress. That, I believe is consistent with your statement, "The people and their employees, the Representatives."

Which agreements have been ratified by Executive Order without any action from congress?

Very few. ALL of them were negotiated by the executive branch the submitted to congress. That's why some have not been ratified by the US. They were ignored or rejected by congressional vote usually by republicans.

All negotiations should be conducted dependent upon the American peoples consent.

Negotiations should be conducted by elected executives and ratified or rejected by elected legislators.

The recent 'free trade' agreement between Russia and Egypt (who do have dictators) had absolutely not publicity beforehand, negotiations were done totally in secret and will not be submitted to any real legislature for ratification.

[aspirant]

109. Opinion suveys SHOW

Guesses, nothing more.

"very few"; Agreements ratified by Executive Order without Congress, could you please list those very few.

Elected executives and elected legislators = OUR EMPLOYEES.

Russia and Egypt are not America and to compare their ratification process to ours is beyond belief.

[pampango]

110. I really doubt that Democrats are 'guessing' about their preferences as much as republicans are.

Democrats are generally better informed and care more about history and science than republicans.

You stated that the US is not a dictatorship. I agreed and pointed out how dictators actually negotiate and ratify trade agreements.

"very few"; Agreements ratified by Executive Order without Congress, could you please list those very few.

I am sure that if you really care you will look them up yourself. ALL of those international agreements were negotiated by the executive (not the legislative) branch. Most were submitted to the legislature for ratification/rejection. Those that were executive agreements did not require that. Who does the negotiating is clear.

[aspirant]

113. Maybe your confused

Again, specifically which Executive International agreements don't require Congressional action for ratification/rejection to become law.

Survey opinions are predictions, estimates and guesses at best. The participants can respond however they choose but the numerical results are unverifiable propaganda.

Why do you hate the American Worker by supporting TPP.

[pampango]

118. International negotiations are ALWAYS handled by the executive branch.

Whether they are subject to congressional ratification varies.

Why do you hate the American Worker by supporting TPP.

The ol": If you do not agree with me, you HATE AMERICA!

If you support civil rights, WHY DO YOU HATE WHITES! If you support equal rights for women, WHY DO YOU HATE MEN!

[aspirant]

122. I love all Americans

The ol'' try to divide and conquer America routine.

TPP is no friend to America, do you enjoy having no friends?

[pampango]

148. Does that include Central Americans and South Americans or only USA Americans? USA! USA!

The ol'' try to divide and conquer America routine.

Nice try. I am the one in favor of equal rights for everyone. You are the one in favor of special status for some while others need to be in their 'place'.

do you enjoy having no friends?

If you come to DU for friends, I hope you have made a lot of them. Don't worry so much about me. There are plenty of Democrats who support TPP (irrespective of your distain for polls which show that) more than I do since as I have stated many times.

You and I probably agree on most liberal perspectives. The fact that we don't agree on one is a good thing, IMHO. If everyone agreed on DU it would be a pretty boring place.

[aspirant]

153. I'm for all people

The TPP treason crushes equal rights so if you still have a crush on the TPP the rights of the people are irrelevant

When you can verify a poll, I will listen I really will.

[sabrina 1]

69. Should Congress have the right to CHANGE this agreement, to amend it, to iow, WRITE our Legislation,

or are you okay with Foreign Corporations writing OUR legislation, and if so, WHY? Do you trust Foreign Corporations to represent the American people BETTER than their own LEGISLATORS?

I'm sorry, but the years long history of this debacle tell most people who have followed it, that when Foreign Corps refuse to allow OUR Representatives to even SEE what they planning for this country, until the outrage became so great they finally relented and 'allowed' a few members of Congress to 'peek' at a few things, there is something terribly wrong going on.

And AFTER peeking, some of those members stated, in response to 'why is it so secret' that 'if the American people knew what was in it, they would oppose it'.

Well they ARE opposing Foreign Corporations writing Legislation for this country even WITHOUT seeing most of what is in it.

You know that we do know some of what is in it, and that what we know so far has added to the original outrage and for good reason?

[rhett o rick]

62. Your argument is very naive. Pres Obama has been orchestrating this agreement.

It's not like the corporations are forcing him to write it as it is being written. He is molding it the way he wants it.

"If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal." Really? How many US jobs are you willing to give away to get this "dream". Secondly, the corporations that are negotiating this piece of crap aren't about the give workers in Vietnam labor rights. They are working to kill labor rights. How well did NAFTA work out for labor rights?

Why are the unions hating this agreement? Do you hate the unions?

[Hoyt]

63. I think you are just unfairly bashing Obama.. Wait and see what if anything he endorses.

I actually do care about workers in countries like Vietnam.. You should too.

[rhett o rick]

66. Oh plez spare me the "If you don't bow down, then you are bashing." Bullcrap.

The TPP looks to all that have seen it to be disastrous. And none of Obama supporters have given one single reason it will help American workers. He wouldn't have let it get this far if he didn't support it. He wouldn't be fighting so hard for Fast Track if he thought the public wouldn't object. Your Faith is sweet but not very "politically liberal". Some said that Pres Clinton wouldn't sell us down the river but he couldn't wait to sign Gramm-Leach-Blyley.

I do care about all workers and that's why I am very leery about this. If you care about the chickens, then don't trust the f'n Fox to write the agreement. Other "agreements" haven't helped any labors.

[Hoyt]

67. I don't think Obama is selling us down the river. Most who think he is, are

misinformed, or just flat Obama haters. My guess is you accused him of attempting to gut Social Security, being for the pipeline, against net neutrality, etc.. If so, you were wrong about that as well.

[ND-Dem]

78. I'm sick of hearing "you must hate Obama" as a response to any suggestion of criticism or

questioning of the President. He's not a little tin god, he's our president, and we have every right to criticize or question his acts as president.

[pampango]

108. "Is a treasonous agreement a good deal?" Accusing him of negotiating 'treason' is not the same as

"any criticism or questioning of the President". That sounds more like the bleating of the tea party who regularly accuses Obama of 'treason'.

[aspirant]

115. Do you pay that close attention to the Tea Party

that you know what they regularly do.

Is Obama negotiating, I thought Froman was his main man.

Our criticism should be fluffy and generic like the conditioned flock.

[pampango]

116. Any one who does not know that tea partiers accuse Obama of treason is not paying

attention.

Is Obama negotiating, I thought Froman was his main man.

So now Obama is not responsible for TPP negotiations? That is a different take.

[aspirant]

119. Paying attention on a regular basis? Hmmm

Obama has the pen, Congress has the votes and Froman slithers around in the darkness.

Don't you just hate all this secrecy?

[pampango]

121. Spouting their talking points? Hmmmm. n/t

[aspirant]

123. Is the Tea Party calling the TPP treasonous?

We know you're listening on a regular basis.

[pampango]

127. They regularly accuse Obama of being a liberal, open-borders, globalist, traitor. Check it yourself.

http://obamatrade.com/

I sense you might agree with that assessment except you would term him a "conservative", open-borders globalist.

Knowing what idiocy the tea party is spewing hardly means one agrees with it. What does agreeing with the tea party without realizing it mean?

[aspirant]

131. I'll let you do all the RW checking

You "sense" I might agree and can predict my exact words, you have Psychic powers too.

You even have RW links, have you read one that says TPP is treason?

[pampango]

133. You don't care what the far-right says. If blissful ignorance is your preferred state, be my guest.

I won't expose you to information that will make you uncomfortable. I just hope that all liberals don't ignore the right in the hopes that what they say and do is irrelevant. Bad things happen when good people don't stop bad people from doing what they profess they want to do.

I see what you are doing with this "You are the expert on what the far-right says, while I am the liberal purist who would have no way of knowing such things." Well played.

[aspirant]

134. I'm glad we have someone

comfortable with RW jibberish that can keep us low-information voters informed.

[pampango]

144. I agree that what the RW spouts is jibberish.

I see what you did there again. You are good.

[aspirant]

154. Pampango, I think you mean well but here our paths split.

[ND-Dem]

125. we have every right to question or criticise an agreement that reportedly cedes our and

our legislators' rights and duties to global corporate tribunals.

[pampango]

128. I agree. We all have the right to question every policy put forward by anyone.

Calling a Democratic president a "traitor" goes beyond supporting, opposing or questioning a policy.

[ND-Dem]

129. the agreement was described as traitorous in your excerpt, not the president. and if it

turns out to be as described, it would be.

not that calling a politician traitorous is somehow beyond the pale, even the president. other presidents have survived worse.

[pampango]

132. I disagree. Questioning a policy is appropriate. We all do it. DU would not exist without that.

Calling a policy 'traitorous' and, by extension, the main politician promoting it a 'traitor' is a different matter.

Is a politician a 'traitor' if he pushes tax cuts for the rich, deregulation or any other policy we think is bad for the country and its people? If that is the case, then the term "traitor" means less than I thought it meant.

other presidents have survived worse.

I agree. Being called a 'traitor' on DU has got to be pretty low on the list of things that presidents worry about.

[rhett o rick]

130. You don't know him any better than I. I don't hate him but expect him to represent the lower classes

From what we know now, the TPP is selling the lower classes down the river. I can show you if you need to see. If you have any evidence otherwise, plez share. I think you are flying on blind FAITH.

And you do a great disservice to honest discussion when you mis-characterize those with which you disagree. No one accused him of "Gutting Social Security", but many were concerned when he put SS cuts on the table. As for the XL Pipeline, he waited a long, long time before coming out against it and he still hasn't taken any action. When he appointed Thomas Wheeler the Left was rightly upset. Mr. Wheeler is close with the industry that would profit from a decision against net neutrality. And in fact, the first proposal by the committee had Mr. Wheeler and the two Republicons agreeing on a plan to control the internet. Outcries from the Left seem to convince the President to back off.

What's funny is that when the President takes a stand against the lower classes or hints that he is, and the Left applies pressure and the President backs off, the New Democrats claim we should have had blind FAITH all along. In a representative form of government, the governed have an obligation to monitor and make sure that the representatives are truly representing them. I only wish the Left could have convinced the President to stop the domestic spying and roll back the Patriot Act.

[Hoyt]

135. He's done none of those things. In fact, the so-called Catfood Commission proposed raising Social

Security payments for those on the low end of the scale -- ie, "lower class." Folks like you condemned it without even reading the proposal. The talk about the Chained-CPI, also had protection built in for those on the lower end. Totally ignored by those like you who just assume Obama is out to screw you, and don't do any research beyond reading some equally myopic OP-Ed piece.

I think you give yourself too much credit regarding what your whining, and bashing of Obama, has achieved.

[rhett o rick]

138. So you claim that the Chained CPI would have been beneficial to the middle and lower classes?

I must have missed the link. Did the "Catfood Commission" suggest raising the cap like the Left wants?

You are unaware that the first proposal put out by Obama's Thomas Wheeler was exactly what the industry wanted? The Left made a huge outcry. Did you miss all that? It's since been changed. Why? Because Wheeler got a conscience?

[Hoyt]

141. Yes, if Social Security payments were increased for those on low end, it would by definition help

them more than doing nothing, which is what they got.

Do you care to provide a link to Wheeler's first proposal? If you can find that, howsabout one with Obama patting him on the back and saying, "good work Tom."

[rhett o rick]

160. I will be glad to show you mine (link) if you show me yours.

Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the three Democrats on the Federal Communication Commission, has asked for a delay on the proposal by Chairman Tom Wheeler for new neutrality rules. Rosenworcel said the "torrent of public response" hostile to the idea of a pay-for-play fast lane on the internet warranted the delay.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/08/1297841/-FCC-commissioner-asks-for-delay-net-neutrality-rules#

The day after around 150 Internet and tech companies asked FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to remove discriminatory loopholes from his net neutrality proposal, another large coalition — comprised of everything from consumer advocates to educators to Reddit to… the Harry Potter Alliance — has written to both Wheeler and President Obama, calling for the FCC to drop the controversial plan to allow Internet “fast lanes.”
http://consumerist.com/2014/05/08/a-second-large-coalition-calls-on-white-house-fcc-to-not-screw-up-net-neutrality/

I am disappointed that you forgot about this very important issue where Pres Obama, against the loud wishes of the Left, appointed a industry friendly Tom Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler proceeded to propose rules that millions of Americans objected to.

Now it's your turn. Please show me a link to something that explains how the Chained CPI would help middle and lower class citizens.

[Hoyt]

165. Wheeler proposal to ban fast-lanes.

http://fortune.com/2015/02/04/fcc-tom-wheeler-net-neutrality/

[rhett o rick]

171. You are changing the game. I claimed that Wheeler originally proposed to give the

industry control and you asked that I provide proof. I did so. I am fully aware that after millions of Americans turned on him AND OBAMA, he recanted. You just sent a link to his latest after the Left finished with him.

Now it's your turn to give me a link that show how the Chained CPI was going to help the middle and lower classes.

[Hoyt]

173. It didn't happen in the end, and likely never was a serious proposal.

Last edited Sat Feb 21, 2015, 02:25 AM - Edit history (1)

The chained-cpi proposal had protections for those on lower end of scale.

And, don't forget the ACA provided a big savings in out-of-pocket drug costs that would more than offset years of compounded reductions under a Chained-CPI. That's another thing you have to keep in mind, it's foolish to look at one factor in isolation from what else impacts a group of people.
http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0411/Social-Security-proposal-from-Obama-How-would-it-affect-you

Also review comments on SSA.. website.

Truthfully, if we'd made the relatively minor adjustments, the roughly 20% cut expected in disability payments in the next year or two if Congress doesn't act, would have been avoided.

[rhett o rick]

174. I can't believe you. Tom Wheeler and the two Republicans make a proposal to allow the

industry leaders to control the internet and you say it was "likely never a serious proposal." There is a saying that for some, rationalization is the key to happiness. Well you know how to rationalize. So Mr. Wheeler makes a proposal that favors the industry that he is deeply involve with and you say it wasn't a "serous proposal. Why, oh why would he do that?

Your link is for the Christian Science Monitor???? Now there is a bastion of liberal thinking. What the f???.

From the article: "Obama's proposal comes with "protections" designed to cushion the impact." WTF There is going to be an impact that is going to need cushioning? That's like saying, "I am going to punch you in the face, but if you pull back at impact, it will cushion the impact. "

How will the Chained CPI help the middle class and lower classes?

[Hoyt]

175. You obviously don't read widely if you think CS Monitor is conservative. Fact is,

the policy of the Obama admin is net neutrality, no FCC regs/policies have changed that.

Here. Wheeler is almost a year ago defending net neutrality:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-fcc-net-neutrality-wheeler-20140430-story.html

[brentspeak]

139. Anyone else note the irony of Hoyt's avatar?

I ask you: Would Woody Guthrie regurgitate corporate DC beltway talking points?

[Hoyt]

142. Woody, would care about the poor doing better. In today's economy, that means helping produce

income and redistributing it properly (which we haven't been doing) through heavy taxes on corporations and the wealthy to educate people for better jobs, providing safety nets, guaranteed income for those displaced, increasing minimum wage, improving health care, etc.

Woody would also care about helping labor and the poor worldwide. The goals of the TPP would do that, if other countries agree.

[brentspeak]

149. Yes, Woody Guthrie singing along with pharma CEOs and the US Chamber of Commerce

Thanks for the laugh.

Tell your paymasters it didn't work.

[Hoyt]

150. That was the 1930s. Unfortunately, things are different now. Arlo Guthrie,

of all things, considers himself a libertarian Republican.

Do you care about the poor worldwide, or just yourself?

[TheKentuckian]

161. Obama put the Social Security cut in his own fucking budget, your attack is a delusional

argument with reality and no I don't buy any cock and bull "chess" stuff either. He pushed austerity committees over and over even when he had every bit of cover required to give up the ghost. The TeaPubliKlan cosponsors all dropped from the binding deal so he comes back with the non binding one when that blew up despite being obviously weighted toward austerity so we got "the gang" (shit, there may have been a couple of "gangs&quot then we had the sequester and the trigger.

No, I don't believe the cockamamie fables, I believe the black and white, in print, from the office of the President official submission.

He put also an industry hack in position to actually decide net neutrality and we don't have it so despite rhetoric we will have see what happens but the Social Security cut proposal is incontrovertible fact past that all you have is creative speculation.

[2naSalit]

124. "...he's seeing what he can get"

That right there is where I have a problem with the whole trade deal, this one specifically because of this concern. If the president is "seeing what he can get" it sounds more like a situation where he's asking for things rather than stating where the line be drawn and how the others need to take steps upward rather than us letting our lives further erode as it worsens for the rest.

The whole litany of explanations don't fill the abyss wherein real information is hidden, I am highly skeptical about this "deal" for so many reasons I don't know where to start but I don't like it or the way in which it is being handled.

[Populist_Prole]

136. Bingo

This is nothing more than the carrot & stick routine; with the carrot ostensibly giving this deal's DU shills juuuuussssst enough plausible deniability of the stick.

[Dwight42]

28. There are legitimate reasons to mistrust President Obama on this

Well I see legitimate reasons to mistrust President Obama on these trade issues; his support for these sovereignty destroying trade agreements......TTP and TIPP that will actually make NAFTA, and we all know what a horror story that was for the US worker look like manna from heaven.

Then there is his support for the Patriot Act, Going along with SS cuts, increasing gap between the rich and poor at the price of destroying of the middle-class, the class that actually brought the great prosperity to this country after WWII that lasted until the 1970's when the conservatives began their assault on the American People.

The redundancy of the Department of Homeland Security, the murder of tens of thousands, if not over a million and counting innocent people through these unstoppable wars, not to mention the drone wars that are murdering the innocent on a daily basis and maybe take out a few "terrorists" or" freedom fighters", depending on where you live in the process.

The collapsing infrastructure, increasing homelessness, Asian Piviot, Sequestering and never ending support for the Military/Security/Congressional/Industrial Complex.

And finally the bogus Obamacare, which is taken directly from the Heritage Foundation and Mitt Romney and mainly enhances the bottom line of Insurance Company's since the government subsidizes the industry to take on those unable to afford health care instead of the much less expensive route of Medicare for all.

And I think the same can be said for the Bush's and Bill and Hillary as well.

[sabrina 1]

68. I read his response, it's not very encouraging when we allow Foreign Corporations to write our laws

so that WE supposedly, 'don't get the short end of a stick from China'. When did our Congress become so incompetent that they have to be REPLACED by Foreign Corporations to make sure we are 'protected' from someone else beating us economically?

He is tempering his statements now I notice, since the outrage has only grown, not just in this country but in the other countries who will also be affected.

So, can anyone explain to me WHEN Congress' job of writing and passing Legislation for the benefit of this country was GIVEN AWAY to Foreign Corporations?

I cannot believe the excuses we are hearing. Do you seriously THINK that Foreign Corporations are going to be looking out for OUR best interests?

CONGRESS, this is THEIR Job. I don't remember electing Foreign Corps to write our legislation, do you?

[erronis]

20. +1 - remember the claims for transparency?

I can see some need for sotto-voce in the bargaining but not for the wholesale blacking-out of all information about these deals.

Why wouldn't there be some nice little PR pieces in the last few years showing roughly how this would increase the welfare of the various partners?

[FiveGoodMen]

29. But he wants it, so what does that make him?

[Hoyt]

31. He wants it if he gets a good deal, you should too because Congress will play

politics with good deal. It also helps get countries to negotiate reasonable terms if there is a good chance Obama could get it through.

How good a deal do you think Obama could get if he told Japan, Canada, and ultimately European countries, that our Congress was going to debate every little thing from font size to tariffs?

If countries still refuse a good deal, Obama will say I tried..........

[aspirant]

36. We The People

will determine if it is a good deal for Americans, not relying on the "reasonable terms" of other countries.

A good deal is breaking up our sovereignty, really, let the American people decide that.

[Hoyt]

39. It's not likely to impact our "sovereignty" as much as you think. And it

applies in other countries.

[aspirant]

41. "overrule federal, state and local laws"

This is treason

[Hoyt]

42. No it does not. The "tribunals" which are in existing agreements, including European Union,

are quite limited.

[aspirant]

44. I quoted the OP

Tribunals that "override federal, state and local laws" are treason.

[Agnosticsherbet]

147. Fast Track authority must be granted to the President by Congress.

If a bill requires funding, Fast Track Authority must originate in the House.

A bill passed with Fast Track authority must be returned to Congress for approval. They have 45 days to look at it, after which the House and the Senate can vote to approve the treaty or disapprove the treaty. It can not be amended.

Before they approve or disprove the Bill Congress sees what they are approving. At that time, the final treaty would be open to public debate also.

What they loose by granting the authority is the ability to modify the treaty with amendments. Congress has the power to disapprove the Treaty. Fast Track authority does not surrender their power to approve or disapprove a negotiated treaty.

Is that right?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. I thought it was treason to interfere with the President's foreign policy initiatives?

Don't get me wrong, I hope the TPP crashes and burns, but people are getting waaaaaay too carefree with labeling things treason.

[99th_Monkey]

3. Well, once US sovereignty is deliberately & completely undermined by corporate Int'l tribunals..

... will it be ok to call it treason then?

By that time the question will be academic, as in moot.

[aspirant]

6. You mean like Boehner and Netanyahu?

Disagree, all these soft, fluffy words have resulted in the mess were in now. The war criminals dance around free as birds and the filthy banksters laugh at us and our DOJ representatives.

We need the Shock and Awe within the power of the words.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "We need the Shock and Awe within the power of the words."

If nothing happens the words will mean nothing.

To make it happen you have to charge Obama with treason. I'm sure with a GOP Congress and Senate you could probably get your wish but Sen. Sanders would have to help out on the Senate side.

[aspirant]

13. Using these generic, fluffy words (TPP, Fast Track, Investor State)

will calmly allow its passage, the original intention of these WORDS.

What was the low-information voters definition of Chained CPI before the people learned thru communication of WORDS that it was a SS CUT?

You don't have to indict anyone, just inform the people in WORDS they understand and let the people act.

[guillaumeb]

27. thank you

you got right to the heart of the matter. If the deal is so good for this country let everyone see it and let everyone ask questions.

Liars and thieves like to hide what they are doing with jargon. How many Americans have any idea what "quantitative easing" really means?

nice post

[ND-Dem]

79. "Liars and thieves like to hide what they are doing with jargon" +100

[guillaumeb]

126. plus we do not want to call them liars and thieves

because we cannot discourage the job creators. Another perversion of language when the people who are destroying the working class can be described as "job creators". They are wealth creators, and the wealth created is non-productive wealth based on speculation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. The RW is also accusing Obama of treason on other issues. Using treason as a mere rhetorical

device cheapens the word but with the RW adding to the volume of your calls you facilitate their ends.

[aspirant]

94. No,

I facilitate the people's end.

"treason on other issues" Guilt by association, you mean like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, that RW tactic you're utilizing.

How do you cheapen the truth?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. One side yells, "Obama is a traitor for the TPP!" the other side yells, "Obama is a traitor for his

foreign policy!"

All the middle hears is, "Obama is a traitor!" And this leaves him with no political capital for anything.

Yeah, I get it, the TPP is a bad deal but can we oppose it without shooting our face off to spite our nose?

[aspirant]

96. Two distinct sides, RW and Populist Dems, glad you agree

"Oppose it" We choose to kill it not sheepishly criticize the deal with our fingers crossed.

If traitor is what the middle hears, why doesn't Obama make it 100% public so they can form their own opinion? Can you imagine the political capital from that simple action?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

97. Hey, I never said the man was immune from pursuing bad policies and doing so in a bad way.

I'm just saying the word, "treason" is misapplied and self-defeating.

[aspirant]

101. If we allow

corporations to usurp our sovereignty, the word treason is justly applied

The only way the TPP lovers can defeat our WORDS of truth is to put the WORDS on such a high pedestal, they could never be used. That will be a sad day indeed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. Then what is to stop the RW from using the word treason?

The TPP is a horrible policy but the Constitution specifically defines treason and it did so in order to keep the charge from being used to criminalize political opposition.

If we continue down this road we MAY win a short term victory over the TPP but we will create for ourselves a nation where anti-war protests and demands for civil rights in matters of law are deemed treason.

Might I add -- Treason being such a strong and absolute word, did you vote for Obama in 2012 or did you vote for someone you are convinced is conducting acts of treason?

[aspirant]

105. I could care less

what the RW is doing. I don't guide my life by what Repubs do, irrelevant. So your back to this RW association thingy again.

You're claiming TPP'S treasonous corporate sovereignty is equated to human beings, the ones included in FOR,OF,and BY THE PEOPLE, voicing protests and demanding their rights, good luck with that.

Might I respond -- never considered hiring a psychic for my 2012 vote.

[Octafish]

8. Brave New World Order Thing globalist endgame

And it benefits the Have-Mores, Big Time.

Larry Summers
and the Secret "End-Game" Memo

Thursday, August 22, 2013
By Greg Palast for Vice Magazine

EXCERPT...

The year was 1997. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was pushing hard to de-regulate banks. That required, first, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act to dismantle the barrier between commercial banks and investment banks. It was like replacing bank vaults with roulette wheels.

Second, the banks wanted the right to play a new high-risk game: "derivatives trading." JP Morgan alone would soon carry $88 trillion of these pseudo-securities on its books as "assets."

Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers (soon to replace Rubin as Secretary) body-blocked any attempt to control derivatives.

But what was the use of turning US banks into derivatives casinos if money would flee to nations with safer banking laws?

[font color="green"]The answer conceived by the Big Bank Five: eliminate controls on banks in every nation on the planet – in one single move. It was as brilliant as it was insanely dangerous. [/font color]

CONTINUED...

http://www.gregpalast.com/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo/

Ask not what Goldman can do for you, ask what you can do for Goldman.

[Enthusiast]

100. +1 an entire shit load.

[NuclearDem]

11. I remember when the word "treason" used to mean something

[aspirant]

14. What does it mean now?

[99th_Monkey]

16. Betraying one's country by secretly ceding its sovereignty to global Oligarchs

qualifies in my book.

[Hoyt]

49. Have you read about tribunals and looked at the cases that arose under NAFTA.

No country lost their sovereignty.

[99th_Monkey]

52. TPP is not NAFTA

It's NAFTA on steroids, with secret tribunals empowered to grant private corporations "damages" for "lost profits" because of environmental regulations and/or other protections of the general public health and welfare.

[Hoyt]

53. The tribunals are the same.. Read for yourself. Jeeeez.

[99th_Monkey]

55. Then please explain why Labor & Environmental advocates aren't championing TPP

Redirecting me to the minutia of the text that is mostly secret by design is not persuasive.

[Hoyt]

56. Truthfully, it's better for them to bash Obama and obsfucate.

They are using TPP to spread BS and boost membership. That's what these organizations do, I've worked for some similar organizations. There's no money and/or power in being truthful. Right wing organizations do it too, probably more. It's getting kind of old, truthfully.

[99th_Monkey]

57. Awesome talking point, but

please excuse me if I don't buy your arrogant denigration of my
allies in our global struggle for economic justice, workers' rights
and environmental sustainability.

[Hoyt]

59. Good luck. I think you'd be better off promoting trade and taxing the heck out of those

who profit from it -- using that money for healthcare, education, safety nets, living wage, welfare, eventually guaranteed income for those displaced, etc.

If you truly give a darn about global workers wellbeing, you are missing an opportunity with TPP and similar agreements.

[99th_Monkey]

60. Wow. nt

[ND-Dem]

80. +100.

[DeSwiss]

18. Oh, now......

...I'm sure you're bein' overly demonstrative here. Why just the other day I said to myself: ''Self, you know it sure is a good thing we've got leaders who'll promise to look out for the working man,'' I said.

Then I went to the Youtubes to look for those promises and the promisors, just to remind myself of how the last trade agreement worked out.

- And who did the work:

K&R

See? Nothing to worry about...........

[Jack Rabbit]

19. I agree that support for the TPP is treason

What else should we call it when some conspire to turn over America's sovereignty to a kangaroo court of corporate shysters controled by unelected corporate tyrants?

If the TPP should pass Congress, what other response is proper than open non-cooperation with authority?

[wildbilln864]

22. and a big K & R! n/t

[winter is coming]

25. Now, now, it hasn't happened yet.

And once it does, it will be time to move forward and not relitigate the past.

[99th_Monkey]

46. +100 good one. nt

[woo me with science]

50. Huge K&R

[Ramses]

61. Once Hillary is anointed and coronated, we wont be able to talk about issues like this

Ive read we will all need to shut up and pledge allegiance. I guess I will just have to learn to clap harder.

[Populist_Prole]

64. Even Robert Reich thinks it's a bad deal

He was always one of those "free trade" Pollyannas like Hoyt who ignored the elephant in the room and basically thought we could make up for it's corrosive effects by demanding ( begging? ) compensation from the corporatist's newly fattened bottom lines. He now realizes that was all a crock of shit and has seen the light.

True believers and team players won't see the light because to them it's just policy wonkishness and they've got no skin in the game.

[99th_Monkey]

65. I like Robert Reich

especially how he has stayed the course, by producing very informative
videos to spell out how fucked we are, in bold relief.

[Hoyt]

75. Robert still says NAFTA was good, because his name is all over it.

But Obama didn't appoint him to anything, so he's against what Obama is trying to do. Some folks aren't smart enough to see it.

[ND-Dem]

81. "I still regret not doing more to strengthen the North American Free Trade Act's labor and

environmental side-agreements when I was labor secretary under Bill Clinton. The TPP is NAFTA on steroids. Make a ruckus."

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/736965702982695


I guess Obama appointed you to something.

[Hoyt]

82. And Obama is trying to strengthen the labor and environmental side of TPP which

would also impact Mexico and Canada. So why don't you give Obama credit?

[ND-Dem]

85. Why would I give anyone credit when everything's done in secret? I don't give reich much

credit for nafta, btw, either. just wanted to make the point that on the record he does express regret, now that its too late to do anything about it. contrary to your assertion.

which I'm sure Obama will as well, when the time comes.

[Hoyt]

86. You sure seem to know that "secret" agreement is going to screw us.

Sorry, I've had enough "Obama is going to sell us down the river" conspiracy gossip for tonight.

[ND-Dem]

87. good. go to bed.

[cascadiance]

152. But you seem to "know" that this secret agreement is going to be "good" for us.

I say that anything done in secret is done for a reason and it usually isn't something that is popular and supported by the majority of people out there. Otherwise it wouldn't be done in secret as much and be championed in front of us as a major accomplishment to "make things better".

That is why the whole principle of government processes being "open" is so important. That for the most part ensures that we don't get screwed by secret legislation being passed before we are allowed to know what's being done in our name and to us against our own interests.

[Hoyt]

155. It's done like that because complicated negotiations won't accomplish anything if done in

real time with people bent on scuttling it. You, people in other countries, their elected representatives, etc., will have plenty of opportunity to provide input before Obama decides whether to endorse it by sending it to Congress.

You aren't even patient enough to give Obama the benefit of the doubt while it's still in negotiations. Don't think your input would offer much at this point. I trust Obama to get a good deal, if possible -- better than anyone at this point.

Do you really think you are smarter than other countries who will have to approve any agreement, Obama, etc. I'm willing to wait and see what happens before condemning it.

[cascadiance]

156. But who's doing most of the "negotiations" in secret? Corporate entities! That is NOT democracy!

And anyone who believes in it, shouldn't allow such a process that allows those who could corrupt the process to their benefit with the most power to shape and access to its details when everyone else is not, and when something like Fast Track is passed, it is mandating a simple majority to pass TPP instead of a super majority that most trade treaty bills require, and it is mandating a limited time frame to look at it before voting on it without any opportunity to amend it. And few of our congressional officials have been able to see even part of it let alone all of what is in it, and are kept from talking about it with their constituents.

"Accomplishing anything"? Accomplishing anything for WHO should be the big question being asked. There's a reason why we just don't want to "accomplish anything" for those that would want to usurp the power and sovereignty of our elected government to create and execute our laws. That is the kind of power I don't want anything accomplished for. If there are real problems that are affecting a majority of people now in this country that could be fixed by a "trade" treaty, then these should be discussed out in the open, and be set as pretexts as what this bill should be accomplished before the details are being worked on (even if in secret), and those who are working on it in secret should be representatives of our government, and even labor unions and environmental groups amongst others if corporate entities are also involved in shaping these details. Then it is more apt to be a democratic process.

If they are afraid of these other entities "leaking" information that would screw up negotiations, then:

a) these leaks have already happened even with the limited group of people that have access to it with a lot of alternative press groups publishing leaked details.
b) what's stopping corporate entities from leaking information to other corporate entities that will help them game the markets, etc. too based on secrets they know of a newer landscape that will be made with TPP passing? Why should they be viewed as any more "secure" than our government representatives or representatives in other groups that could also be bound by commitments to secrecy agreements.

If these guys come up with some truly revolutionary changes to trade agreement that work *better* than what NAFTA and the WTO gave us before to help codify global labor and environmental standards for trades, and that would allow some degree of protection for local labor forces, etc. in a way that "raises" the bottom that these companies all like to lower so that they can race to it, then I would think that it being more public would help gain acceptance, and provide even more input to those involved with negotiations on how to refine these agreements to do the best for everyone. If what Obama and others are saying that they are doing to have this round of free trade "improve" things is true, you'd think he want this kind of approach instead of the heavily secretive approach they have now that looks to try to "sneak" some really bad legislation through.

[Hoyt]

157. Wrong again. Corporations are not negotiating the TPP. It's government officials from the various

countries. More BS from people bent on scuttling something that might be beneficial to us.

You can read about the current US Trade Representative here:
https://ustr.gov/about-us/biographies-key-officials/united-states-trade-representative-michael-froman

Now, I'm sure people who have worked in industry are on advisory committees, etc., in the Trade Rep's Office, as they should be.

While I love him, I don't think the "Rent is Too High" Guy would really help negotiating international agreements with complicated legal, economic, human/worker rights, environmental, etc., implications.

And I'm sure corporations are lobbying for things beneficial to them, but that doesn't mean countries involved with bend over to them. These large corporations do have interests in these agreements.

When all is said and done, I hope corporations make trillions of dollars more than the do now under new trade agreements (assuming they are held to environmental, worker/human rights, etc., improvements). That's just more money available for improving wages, education, healthcare, welfare, guaranteed incomes, quality of life, etc. Of course, we have to make em pay, pass significant increases to minimum wages, etc.

I still think we should give Obama a chance. Assuming it's brought to a resolution within the next couple of years, he'll produce the documents, explain its implications, etc., before doing anything. If it's not completed soon, it'll be a big part of the 2016 campaign and could even derail HRC if she takes an unpopular stance on it.

[cascadiance]

158. So basically you are calling Senator Bernie Sanders a liar then...

I'm betting he has far more knowledge of what is going on behind the scenes than you. If not, then that's another example of why congress isn't involved enough at this point.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/incomprehensible-secrecy-u-s-senator-bernie-sanders-demands-release-of-corporate-friendly-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-agreement-text/5423209

‘It is incomprehensible to me that the leaders of major corporate interests are actively involved in the writing of the TPP, while the elected officials of this country have little or no knowledge as to what is in it,’ says senator.

Corporations have been making quite a bit more money paying LESS taxes through offshore tax sheltering, etc. and have been outsourcing our labor, etc. and just rewarding the wealthy owners instead of their employees. WHY do you think they need more money, than they get now. Especially if they are likely making the wealth/power divide equation even more in their favor with the TPP that they are BUYING congress people to put in place now! They wouldn't be buying congressmen if it weren't beneficial to them.

Clinton signed NAFTA, the Telecomm Act, etc. that he was trying to extoll the virtues of a lot at the time, which he shouldn't have then too. I see no reason to trust what Obama as doing now as being "better" this time, especially when it is being done in secret.

If it IS completed soon, it will just be one more thing besides the UN that the right will complain about the DEMOCRATS giving away our nation's sovereignty to, when the democratic constituency want NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CRAP and would agree with them here! Whoever the Democratic nominee is, they will have trouble BECAUSE of the TPP passing! If the Democrats fight this and show backbone in standing up for American jobs and our sovereignty, then I'm betting they will be rewarded in 2016, when the nation gets more fed up with corporatist cancer infestation that we have destroying our government now!

Why would you trust someone from Citigroup to negotiate on the people's behalf and not for corporations' interests. Froman won't give us a "good deal".

If we want to stop this thing, we need to stop Fast Track NOW! Only by doing that will this treaty get the full public review that our founders would have felt required for a democracy like us to have to put it in to law and not destroy what they created for us.

[Hoyt]

159. Bernie plays to his audience. I think you should learn to read.

You guys crack me up with the "we are giving away our nation's sovereignty."

[cascadiance]

162. Doesn't seem like Obama's doing a very good job compared to Bernie...

... and if he's working so much for us than Bernie is, then why isn't he coming out and telling us why this bill is so good for us and give us the details of why we should be wanting it to pass! Bernie only has to "play" to Vermonters, assuming all of those doubters say that he's not really running for president. Obama still is playing to all of us as an audience isn't he? Or are are you already noting that he's being a lame duck for everyone except those that are probably promising him a golden retirement somewhere.

Sorry, but I'm just not buying it and neither are most of the rest of us here!

What boards set up with even more power than the WTO that TPP proposes to sue our government over laws they don't like and the ability to throw them aside isn't about taking our sovereignty away is something that even kids in grade school should probably understand if explained to them the way the media should be doing.

[Hoyt]

163. He told us few days ago. You were more concerned with supposed threats to "national sovereignty"

to listen.

[cascadiance]

164. Did he tell us why he needs Fast Track Authority to pass this bill and it should be done in secret?

Maybe you can fill us in on this with links from someplace other than the one of Obama's own web sites that can give us what he said in a way that's not just sugar coated.

If it is such a great thing for us, we shouldn't NEED Fast Track, as everyone would want it to be passed. So, why is it so great and yet kept secret?

A few days ago I was more concerned about how to deal with being heavily sick and keeping up with the demands of two jobs! Just like many of us here in this country are having to deal with by design to try and keep us from paying attention.

[Hoyt]

166. Actually there are people who are against anything Obama does, even when beneficial.

Even folks right here.

[cascadiance]

168. You and others ARE NOT explaining what is beneficial, just playing the "hater" card! TYPICAL!

[Populist_Prole]

137. So what?

You weren't smart enough to see "it". It being the point made. It's not about that he's appointed to serve in this administration, though nice try at a red herring. It was about his epiphany of seeing how bad these agreements are.

Jeeezuzz your sophistry is bold!

[Hoyt]

140. So, what happened between June 2008 and now?

Q: When you were the labor secretary to the first term of the Clinton administration, they pushed through the North American Free Trade Agreement. You were part of that administration. Was that a mistake?

REICH: I don’t think it was a mistake, but it wasn’t really a tremendous help. If you put labor and environmental standards into our trade agreements, it’s not a race to the bottom. If you have an environmental standard and a labor standard that, for example, bars all slave labor, guarantees the right to organize, maintains kind of minimum labor standards throughout the world, you are setting a floor for all nations. It’s not protectionism. This is a way of actually getting everybody up rather than having the bar continue to trend downward. We tried to do this in NAFTA, and, unfortunately, we couldn’t get the Mexican government support. We tried to have a labor and environmental side agreement. I think it would have been a much better agreement had we had that.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Late_Edition_Robert_Reich.htm


The bold is what Obama is after, and it would amend NAFTA as Obama promised. But, now Reich has had a epiphany. Don't think so.

[Populist_Prole]

143. He wised up

[Hoyt]

145. No he didn't. What he said is still true, he's just in a position where there's no income/recognitio

n in supporting trying to get a trade agreement that does those things and ties the world together in improving everyone's lot.

[ND-Dem]

74. K&R....

"only a matter of time before we, the people, own nothing and they, the private individuals and corporations, own everything."

when 1% own as much as 99% and 80 people as much as half the world's population, we're pretty close to that point already.


http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/ib-wealth-having-all-wanting-more-190115-en.pdf

[Enthusiast]

102. We do not want the fucking thing!

[MohRokTah]

170. Throwing around the terms "treason" and "traitor" is irresponsible.

Treason is very well defined by the constitution.

[99th_Monkey]

177. Ceding US sovereignty to a pack of Int'l Corporate Oligarchs

and their secret tribunals definitely qualifies in my book.

[MohRokTah]

178. No, it doesn't.

IT does not fit the definition.

It can be called un-American. It can be called unpatriotic. It can be calle a lot of things.

It cannot be called treason because it does not fit the definition.

[aspirant]

179. and don't forget

TYRANNY and the TYRANTS behind it.

[NuttyFluffers]

176. destroy the snowball before it gains momentum! down with TPP!