Elizabeth Warren Fires Back at Obama:

[sufrommich]

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been one of the loudest opponents to the Obama administration’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, which earned her a presidential rebuke on Hardball last night. Warren fired back on her website this morning, calling for the White House to release details of the trade deal before Congress grants Obama fast track authority.

“If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it, then that agreement should not become the law of the United States,” she wrote Wednesday.

“If most of the trade deal is good for the American economy, but there’s a provision hidden in the fine print that could help multinational corporations ship American jobs overseas or allow for watering down of environmental or labor rules, fast track would mean that Congress couldn’t write an amendment to fix it,” Warren wrote. “Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it.”

The battle of the trade deal, which is supported by the administration and many Republicans but opposed by labor and environmental groups, threatens to pit flanks of the Democratic Party against each other ahead of election season. Liberals disdain trade deals, arguing they gut the U.S. labor force by sending jobs overseas.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/elizabeth-warren-fires-back-at-obama-if-you-want-a-trade-deal-let-us-see-it/

[polichick]

1. Courageous woman.

[donnasgirl]

45. Correct

And the very reason we need her and Bernie in the White House.

[olegramps]

66. I watched Cris Matthews program and I didn't think Obama came off all that well.

It also seemed to me that Mathews had stacked the deck with the commentators since he has shown approval of the bill in the past. It was really pretty generic without any real meat. Obama seemed to just be saying that it was the best trade agreement yet. Well, I am not too impressed with that as justification since the others have been an unmitigated disaster for the America workers. I have support Obama all along and even changed my Independent voting status to Democratic in order to vote for him in the primary.

Let the damn trade agreement see the light of day and let the American people see exactly what is in it. The way this is being handled is something that I would expect from the crooked Republicans who sneak amendments into bills at the last minute.

[wordpix]

118. I agree about labor & also have concerns re: environment

I really wonder what's in the bill and why it's being kept secret.

[WillyT]

2. K & R !!!

[Marr]

3. Liberals don't 'disdain trade deals' in the abstract.

We've disdained just about all them passed since before NAFTA, however. And liberals disdain the TPP.

[JaneyVee]

4. lolwut? that's not what fast track means.

Congress and President most certainly will be involved in drafting legislation.

[cali]

6. huh? Congress has no part in drafting the TPP

if the TPA passes. It can only vote yea or nay on it.

[JaneyVee]

9. Ask Wyden.

[cali]

31. That's the TPA, not the TPP and

yeah, some of what's in the TPA supposedly will dictate elements within upcoming trade agreements like the TPP, but man, is the devil in the detail. Excellent analysis by the folks at American University's Infojustice:

The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill that was released last week contains a fascinating Section 8 on “Sovereignty.” The section appears intended to make all trade agreements with the U.S. not binding to the extent that they contradict any provision of U.S. law, current or future. If valid, the section would go a long way to calming fears in this country that new trade agreements, like the old ones, could be used by corporations or other countries to force the U.S. to alter domestic regulations. (See, for example, analysis on how the leaked TPP text could enable challenges to intellectual property limitations and exceptions like the U.S. fair use doctrine).

Here, I analyze Section 8’s promise using The Washington Post’s “Fact or Fiction” Pinocchio scale. For containing numerous blatantly misleading characterizations of international law, including outright falsehoods concerning the ability of U.S. Congress to determine when international law binds, I give the provision four Pinocchios.

<snip>

http://infojustice.org/archives/34298

[JDPriestly]

69. Thanks, Cali. For example, California is in the midst of a drought.

Hypothetically, (meaning we are talking about a situation that could happen but has not) let's say the drought becomes worse. California declares an emergency and orders that all water in the state be accounted for and be allocated by the state for the needs of the people of California.

But, let's say that an international corporation incorporated in Switzerland is drawing water from springs or wells or other resources in the state either to sell as bottled water around the world or to inject into oil wells and into the aquifers through the wells. Just two examples.

The State of California as I understand it in an effort to manage its water resources could well cause the corporations, both the bottled water corporation and the oil company to lose money with the state's program to identify and allocate the water the corporations claim is theirs.

Under this trade agreement, hypothetically, the corporations would sue California under the trade agreement in the trade court and California could be forced to pay the corporations for money they lost because of California's emergency measures to take control of the water and keep extremely thirsty people alive.

Now, the likelihood of that happening is small. And it is possible that the trade agreement permits countries, states, cities, to pass emergency laws that cannot be the basis for a law suit in the trade court. We don't know what the TPP says.

But in my opinion, the fast track provision should not be approved until we know what the TPP says. (And even then I opposee for among others the reasons set forth below.)

Knowing what is in the trade agreement should be our right long before even the fast track law is considered.

Further, even if there is a provision that permits emergency measures or environmental laws to be protected, the cost of having to defend against huge corporations in an international trade court is not one that corporations should be able to impose on the citizens of any country.

International trade court cases involve the most elite, expensive firms and droves and droves of lawyers. It costs a fortune to defend against a corporate lawsuit of that kind.

In Los Angeles we can barely find the money to repair our sidewalks, and we are a big city. The trade courts are an expensive punishment that will be imposed on government entities and populations that cannot afford the lawyers to defend themselves.

If that is true in the US, think of poor Viet Nam. It would be almost criminal just for some huge corporation to sue some of the poorer countries and force them to hire legal armies to defend their interests. (I know. Not a crime in a technical sense. But should any country be forced to pay expensive lawyers when its people earn under a dollar an hour. These countries will agree to anything to avoid that expense.)

The trade courts are unnecessary and will be an intimidating bar to many a good law that would protect the environment and ordinary people.

And, yes, trade courts will rob us of our sovereignty and deprive the parties in lawsuits of their rights under our Constitution. They will influence our laws both directly and indirectly and deprive our government entities and us of the jury trials to which we are entitled.

If corporations among themselves prefer arbitration courts without juries for their disputes, fine. But we the people deserve to have our differences about environmental issues, copyrights, patents and all sorts of other issues decided pursuant to our Constitution in courts appointed by our elected officials that follow our laws and with juries of our peers if we wish.

Of course, corporations and proponents of the TPP will argue that no individuals appear in trade courts and that they therefore will not be deprived of a jury trial. But that is not the case. It is especially a potential problem in cases involving products that might cause environmental damage or damage to our health. In addition, if our federal, state or local governments are called upon to pay a huge damages award by a trade court, who will be paying that sum? Us of course, and the sum, the penalty will have been imposed by a team of corporate attorneys with no jury of our peers.

And I'm not even talking about the impact on labor standards and disputes that is inevitable in our country in which our standards and laws are more protective of labor than the standards and laws in other countries. That is a huge problem. It would affect many of our lives very directly.

I wish I could explain all the reasons that the TPP courts are heinous and must be rejected. We will ultimately have to decide which precedent in a case is to be followed: the international court's decision that a company had to be compensated for some environmentally detrimental project it planned or some labor practice or the homeowners whose environment was degraded by that or a very similar project or the working people whose workplace rules are affected.

The international courts will have undue influence on what happens here domestically and will threaten and probably to some hopefully small extent destroy our legal system and maybe even our security.

I know this sounds like hyperbole, but it is not. We won't notice the problem at first, and most Americans will not recognize what is happening. But this TPP is a corporate coup. A corporate coup.

Already, our Justice Department cannot take on the banks and prosecute fraud because of our laws protecting them and because they are "too big to fail." We do not need to implicate ourselves even more in the international mesh of "too big to fail" with this TPP agreement.

And above all, before we sign any more trade agreements, we need to make the ones we have work. We need to drastically cut back our trade deficit. For that purpose, I believe that bilateral trade agreements would be more effective.

We need to export closer to as much as we import. And let's try to export some industrial products that are not weapons as well as agricultural products.

Further, we need to make sure that the US Treasury receives more tax revenue from the enormous profits, the gains from these trade agreements. In the past, the trade agreements have facilitated the hiding of corporate profits overseas and impoverished our government.

[mmonk]

99. +1

[HereSince1628]

24. Doesn't the fast track authority being pushed continue for 6 years?

considering how the US is increasingly less interested in these deals it seems wrong to handicap future Congresses from ability to amend any trade agreement that comes forward.

[sufrommich]

7. "fast track would mean that Congress couldn’t write an amendment to fix it"

From what I understand,that is what it means.

[JaneyVee]

19. They get 90 days to debate and vote. But....

They also hold hundreds of previous hearings during draft for amendments and other provisions.

[sufrommich]

21. 90 days seems like enough time to stop it

if it's as bad as it's being portrayed.

[JustAnotherGen]

35. ITA

As long as the Republicans don't bog down the discussion in anti choice and rolling back voting rights - or attaching an anti gay marriage clause to it.

I still believe - some of them have seen something. They know something or they wouldn't be raising all of these alarms.

[sufrommich]

40. I agree,the whole thing is curious and confusing to me. nt

[Joe Worker]

134. It will be the usual

media smoke and mirrors. I wouldn't put it past this WH and its media to continue pounding the war drums about their carrier off Yemen. Or some pathetic piece about Captain Kirks water pipeline and snub of Spock's funeral. etc. Sheesh!

[freshwest]

142. I'm gonna pick cherried and turn the tables from another thread:

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in January that the fast-track bill "puts Congress in the driver’s seat to define our negotiating objectives and strengthens congressional oversight."

http://www.ibtimes.com/fast-track-authority-president-4-key-facts-about-proposed-trans-pacific-partnership-1888879

Well, by all means let's let the GOP controlled House and more importantly, the GOP Senate in charge of approving or declining treaties, have the right to tinker with the word in an agreement that many nations signed onto to get Congressional approval. A hint in the article is here:

A bill that would grant President Barack Obama more authority to negotiate international trade deals is under scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Obama is pictured here at the White House, April 14, 2015.

This sound like Iran nuke treaty obstruction again. The Koch Bros. have enough money to make a years long campaign to stop Obama from doing ANYTHING in order to sabotage America.



Tea Party and their front groups did not appear overnight. In fact, it started under Clinton with the big CT pundits and talk radio, who have since gone full Bircher.

In 2007 Bush promised the Koches Keystone and by that time they had most GOP leaders in their hip pocket. And those who weren't, were replaced by Tea Partiers. Charles Koch threatened Obama with two things his first year in office, that the Bush tax cut would NOT be sunsetted as intended in 2010, and if Obama didn't approve Keystone, that he would pay for it politically.

Obama ignored them and they told their media pals to promote the Tea Party. The result of almost a decade of RF 101, was a GOP majority that made the first order of business to rally the nation against the sunset of the Bush tax cuts by using media to call it a 'tax hike,' which people have been brainwashed against, despite that Obama was going to make it progressive. A high rate for the very wealthy, and less for the majority, and a lot of cuts for the working class and poor.

That was their first act and they held things up with threats of a shut down until they got in office in 2011 and immediately did it every year, getting more radical and making more outrageous demands. They have extorted and brainwashed the public at the same time and had full media assistance every stunt pulled.

At their last big stunt in 2013, they went all out. The opposition, whoever they are, screamed Obama was walking across the street to the Federal Reserve and talking with bankers. Oh, no!

That's when Boehner's face fell and the GOP capitulated in spite of Rand Paul saying he could sell default to the American people as reasonable, and Cornyn gleefully said they would get the chance to manage catastrophe with default. They wanted to re-organize the government on the ALEC maodel.

But the evil Obama went around and talked to his evil friends. I'm sure they showed Boehner and few pf the other conspirators a more graphic version of the Nutcracker Suite than most people see. They folded like the cheap deck of cards they are.

Nonetheless, the Koch dollars have not stopped flowing to get the American people busy and attacking each other while they run away with the store out of sight in state after state. They may be evil, but they have the best minds and mouths to sell their Randian vision money can buy.



Note, the other nations don't need us on this agreement. The USA is not essential, it is but one of many, just as the Iran deal was, and the Europeans didn't care for the GOP interfering with things that were goign to affect them.

Might that also be the case with this deal? That the other nations will just go with each other and leave us out of it? That would be great for the Koches, they'd get to have us be worse off. Break the nation and sell it off in pieces. As if the GOP are not doing this now in every state they control while the Democrats devour their own.

That's from a reply to someone I replied to. I chose to interpret it with fire extinguishers. I see a number of things that could be alarming, but that part of that paragraph stood out for me.

About Froman from his Wikipedia page, he doesn't sound bad, but I see a few alarm bells there:

Froman spent much of his career within the United States Department of the Treasury[2] where he rose to Chief of Staff under Robert Rubin in January 1997 and served until July 1999.

Sounds wonderful but there are things we ought to consider with this source. I don't personally know this man, he may be a saint.

After the end of the Clinton administration in 2001, Froman followed Robert Rubin from the Treasury Department to Citigroup.*[10] He was President and Chief Executive Officer of CitiInsurance and head of Emerging Markets Strategy at Citigroup, managing infrastructure and sustainable development investments.[2] He received more than $7.4 million from January 2008 to 2009 alone.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Froman

*Now, those are not necessarily bad things, if one looks at those items neutrally. Where are the anti-1% crowd when we need them to examine the people who want this deal destroyed?

Or maybe just wants to reform it, but this is a strange way to do it, revealing what goes on when these guys swear to not do so, or so I'd think. And it's not all that 'not transparent' or 'secret' since members of Congress have in their hands the actual agreement RIGHT NOW. The ones who didn't get hard copies are the ones complaining.

*I've been in such processes, and it's trying to not get hard copy and told you can't take them with you. I found out something very odd in my attempts. Others had come and gotten access, took the hard copies, and re-wrote them. IOW, not all people can be trusted with official documents, who knew?

Then the people who needed them for work, didn't have them, couldn't prove what the original said because of the edited copies floating about, which was true. A real pickle ensued and the rules were changed. Because the ones who got the copies and changed them didn't give a damn about the others affected.

Don't get me wrong, the value of having a hard copy is inestimable.
When I can get one, I do. But it can be suppressed, altered, or cherry picked for agenda. I know a number of whistleblowers and people that have testified in court and before legislatures. There is no media support, if it does not suit their agenda. People ought to think about what who owns the media and what their agenda is. These people who speak out, suffer alone and it's a hell of a road to go on, but necessary. Not all survive with their health intact or financially. No one cares about them, except those they're helping who are also nameless.



My argument on another thread, is also jusified in the article cited to say this was an evil process:

Fast track only means no added amendments made by the Senate, IOW, changes to the written agreement the signatories didn't agree to, so this is a basic logic fail.

Boo fucking hoo, they can't amend the words of others, but they can say No if they want. Get out the fire extinguishera and put the fire out, burnt hair stinks.

The reason for no amendments or fast tracking is the other nations involved are not in the Senate, HELLO? They'd have no say to what could disadvantage them for years, how is that an honest deal for them?

This is media brainwashing just like Iran negotiations were. Because... Obama can't be trusted, sn't smart enough, is a traitor and he's not a real American! Give it a rest!

The completed treaty that the Senate has the last word on would be their last chance for nations to have input, you can't change what they agreed to without starting again.

The Senate can vote the treaty up or down. Most of the uproar is ignorance of basic civics.

Would any of us sign onto something that will impact us for years and have a third party jump in after we've signed unto and change the rules?

Hell no...

That being said, it has good and bad things in it. The Congress is stepping out of its Constitutional role. It can NOT be the negotiator here, any more than they can set in and vote in all the countries of the world and tell them what they can and cannot do. If ego was a fossil fuel, gas would cost a quarter a gallon. I call BS. Not on all the fine people with concerns like Sanders, etc. On the GOP Congress that runs these stories.

I can see the hilarity of the GOP 'SPEAK ENGLISH, FURRINER' mob in a foreign capitol trying to negotiate ANYTHING. They are not fit to tule here, much less the world of finance or trade. I smell something rotten. It starts with the letter D and it ends with the letter C, and it's not Denmark.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it... No sleep for me tonight, but I must go and get ready for the day that is already here.

[JustAnotherGen]

155. This right here . . .

Or maybe just wants to reform it, but this is a strange way to do it, revealing what goes on when these guys swear to not do so, or so I'd think. And it's not all that 'not transparent' or 'secret' since members of Congress have in their hands the actual agreement RIGHT NOW. The ones who didn't get hard copies are the ones complaining.

*I've been in such processes, and it's trying to not get hard copy and told you can't take them with you. I found out something very odd in my attempts. Others had come and gotten access, took the hard copies, and re-wrote them. IOW, not all people can be trusted with official documents, who knew?

I think some of them do have a hard copy of a recent draft. I truly do.

[cali]

73. WRONG. Congress critters have had and will have NO role in drafting the agreement. period.

And lots of them have made it clear that they've had trouble getting access to drafts and that their staff (and that means whoever they have on staff whose expertise they consider vital) isn't allowed to see drafts at all.

<snip>

Apart from a few corporations, most stakeholders and public interest groups have been unable to read the TPP drafts in full. Even those in government have complained that their staff cannot access the negotiating text.

<snip>

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html

I'm sorry, but the President has not been forthright about the TPP.

[rhett o rick]

102. The previous hearings did not include our elected representatives. They may

have 90 days to debate but it's still and up or down vote. The bad will come with the good, if there is any good. So far no one, NO ONE has come forward with any good in this agreement.

NO FAST TRACK, NO TPP.

[pampango]

42. With Boehner and McConnell in charge, I'm not sure I want to see any amendments

that congress would pass.

But yes, I think your understanding of fast track is accurate.

[jwirr]

62. Well given that we now have total R rule that sounds good because they could amend it to make it

even worse than it is. But it would also keep a future Democratic congress from making it better for 6 years. This is not a good thing.

[sufrommich]

64. I don't disagree,but I think concepts like

fast track come about because there's been massive abuse of attachments to bills.It's a bad solution to a bad problem.

[jwirr]

81. In that sense I agree. We have seen too much of this in every bill on the floor. Example: The

human trafficking bill with the abortion issue in it.

[sufrommich]

83. Uh, that one made me feel ill. They have no shame. nt

[salib]

108. Hold on!

What in this bill DO WE NEED?

I do not see a thing. There is not need to even bring it up and then no problem with R's adding "worse" things to it.

You are proceeding from a false premise of inevitability and then saying it could be worse if amended.

BTW, R's are perfectly capable of attaching all their crap to any bill (say appropriations) that will be coming down the pike. Limiting amendments only on trade bills has no impact whatsoever on limiting what R's can do to screw things up with amendments, etc.

[sabrina 1]

29. What? The 'legislation' has already been drafted without Congress. Now they want to push it through

without any input from Congress. If you're okay with Global Corporations drafting legislation for Congress to blindly sign off on, leaving only the Executive Branch any opportunity to negotiate without Congress, then I don't know what to say.

I know this, when Bush tried this in 2007, I don't remember anyone saying 'not to worry, it's okay to cut Congress out of the drafting of legislation, so relax'.

Where did you stand on Fast Tracking Trade Bills in 2007?

[2banon]

131. It's already "drafted" by the State Dept and other Multi-Nationals. Congress has no hand this.

[libdem4life]

5. Fearless. Intelligent. Well spoken. Determined. His cute little laugh as he tried to dismiss her

was pathetic. Coming back after him was classy. Keep it up, EW. You're getting all kinds of press...and that's a good thing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. You nailed it lib. How I love that woman! If only H> hada fraction of <E's gumption & genuineness.

[BeanMusical]

85. +1

[Bohunk68]

144. That is what caught my attention.

that smirky smile as he dissed her. If that wasn't sexist................... Poor little woman can't think clearly.

[libdem4life]

151. Exactly. I lost respect for him there. I've been up and down and he's done some good things,

since his 2nd term...no other election to face. But her coming back at him, just Wow. That's personal presence and power.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. !!! nt

[JustAnotherGen]

10. Why is she still saying 'if'?

“If most of the trade deal is good for the American economy . . ."

She has detailed information that she's not sharing with us.

If it's as catastrophic as I'm being lead to believe -

Then she and everyone else in the Senate and House that have this detailed information need to put in writing and formally release it to us. They know something they aren't sharing.

[Cosmic Kitten]

14. Once Obama released the details, it will be IN WRITING for us to see

[JustAnotherGen]

16. Why can't she?

She has the information that is raising the alarm NOW. When he releases it - it's too late.


And it's not just HER - it's every single one of them raising alarms. They have a duty and an obligation to us - not the President.

If it's that bad - then release what you know in writing now - each needs to put their name on it and own it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

20. Do you understand how the TPP document is being chaperoned?

Why put the onus on the
those opposed, and not on
those who are promoting it?

If it's so effing great...
show us the details!

If there is NOTHING TO HIDE
show us!

[JustAnotherGen]

26. I do and have not

One eff to give how it's being chaperoned to the prom.

This is basic.

Simple.

You got deets? Give em up.


Because we aren't getting them from Obama. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's not his style.


Go send an email here: : [email protected]

I gave him more money this morning - and then sent the email.

We have a right to know.

Start leaking the leaks.


And I'm not gonna lie to you or anyone else - Him saying it? That means something. He was always for people like me - and I have no gut feeling that he's out to get me or has been in the past.


Reach out to O'Malley and lets show a sharp difference between our Candidate and 2016 and the Clown the Republicans are going to run.


Can't access FB from my desktop - but it you have one - go there and ask too!


I'd prefer it come from O'Malley anyways as again - he's someone who has never been against people like me. He's trust worthy out of the gate with the info.

[Koinos]

36. TPP Leaked Information

Start here:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/tpp-vs-democracy-leaked-draft-secretive-trade-deal-spells-out-plan-corporate-power

From Elizabeth Warren herself:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=op_ed&id=747

Why Europeans are fuming about the European version (TTIP):

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/20/newly-leaked-ttip-draft-reveals-far-reaching-assault-useu-democracy

Just search DU. Lots of great information on this site.

Hope this helps.

[JustAnotherGen]

46. I've read her stuff and the common dreams stuff before

I'm talking at a deeper level - NOT the draft from last May.

There is more there. And they don't seem to be focused on the innovators and that's driving me nuts. All of these folks seem to forget how HUGE the digital, wireless, and communications (electronic media) world is - and how the businesses are trying to move from a dumb pipe to solutions and practical application.

They know something - I'd like to see a group of Democratic Party Members in the Senate and House take a formal stand and sign a letter in opposition detailing why.

Common Dreams isn't good enough. Warren is regurgitating info from the initial leak. The Electronic Frontier Foundation keeps getting distracted by the Sony hack.

We are on the same side here - but I'm a devil is in the details person and the last time America got all in a lather we ended up at war.

They wouldn't be harping on it if they didn't know something was going to damage us.

We need to know that specific clause that turns us into a place like Brunei.

[2banon]

132. Bingo! Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.

[jwirr]

71. You have a good question but it is my understanding that they got to go into the room and read

the draft but could not make copies or take notes. We need a real whistle blower but then we would not believe them.

[cali]

96. because it's classified under the auspices of national security.

[sabrina 1]

38. What? Have you been following this at all? It doesn't like it from your comment.

For years, members of the Trade Commission have been asking to be allowed (imagine that, our elected officials were not 'allowed' to see what legislation Globe Corps were writing for us in secret) to see what was being drafted as as a Trade Agreement for the people of this country.

For years, they were denied that RIGHT. Then, under intense public pressure from the people AND from every worthwhile organization that represents, LABOR, the Environment, Internet Freedom (yes we know now this bill will have the ability to destroy Net Neutrality) in 2013 to try to pacify the growing opponents, not just in this country, but in all the others countries affected by their secret concoction, Congress was allowed a peek at a small part of the draft.

Sherrod Brown spent a year since then, trying to get a response from the administration as to why his staff has been restricted from viewing that text.

Those who have seen it, have stated 'IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT WAS IN IT THEY WOULD OPPOSE IT'.

And now the public knows a little MORE of what's in it, thanks to Leaks. And those who stated they would oppose it, were absolutely right.

IF Warren were the only one demanding TRANSPARENCY on this now very, very controversial bill, maybe it could be said she is just overly concerned.

But she is joined by almost all of our most respected Democrats, Environmental Groups, Unions, Civil Liberties orgs etc ALL opposed to this 'deal' most of which is STILL SECRET.

And what they are trying to do now is to get Congress to BLINDLY FAST TRACK, essentially giving up their right to know what is in it and leaving that to the Executive Branch.

Where did you stand when Bush tried to Fast Track his Trade Bill in 2007 btw?

[merrily]

153. Didn't Poppy try to fast track NAFTA too?

[Oilwellian]

53. Except it's currently labeled "classified"

Hence the reason why it's been so secret. Shhhhh.

[JustAnotherGen]

59. You are not nice to me :-)

Well played sir!

[hedda_foil]

133. She explained very clearly that the Senators and Representatives who read it are...

They are barred from disclosing its contents on national security grounds. In other words, she has to couch her words while providing us with a great deal of information at the same time.

[Octafish]

11. ''If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it...

...then that agreement should not become the law of the United States." -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren

[JustAnotherGen]

17. Fast Track Means that when Obama releases the details

It's a done deal - right?

I swear I've been reading this over and over again at DU.

That's too late if this is going to completely crash our economy and destroy our way of life.

[Octafish]

30. I understand it means authority for an up-or-down vote.

Not sure about the timeframe. But if there's no time for Congress to read the agreement in full, let alone debate its merits, it's criminal -- no matter who say's it's progressive.

“I have never, ever in my 33 years in Congress ever supported, ever supported a trade agreement. And I'm not going to start now... They're not good for the American people. They're not good for working men and women. It puts us at a disadvantage.” -- Harry Reid

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/harry-reid-fast-track_n_7112704.html

[JustAnotherGen]

32. We need a good solid whistle blower on this n/t

[Octafish]

120. Great idea for the Associative Universe to unfold...

...“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become.” -- Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha.

Seeing how the lobbyists and industry lawyers who wrote the thing are so well-paid, I can understand how they may not realize they've been compromised, corrupted and/or co-opted. Otherwise, they would have to blow the whistle.

[JustAnotherGen]

140. I don't expect the people who wrote it blow the whistle

I expect the people who are supposed to be of the people and by the people to do that.

[delrem]

112. This thing has been in the works since 2006!

http://tppinfo.org/resources/tpp-timeline/

Now not even congress has a heads up as to what's in it, when they vote on some "fast track" for approval?

That's nuts.

Why the sudden rush NOW, on a deal that's so all encompassing w.r.t. the economies of nations, w.r.t. the ability of democracies to regulate environmental laws, labor laws, and in fact all laws that democracies after hundreds of years of blood sweat and tears have earned the power to rule on?

Why the rush to overthrow democracy?

[Octafish]

115. Great points! In the works since 2006, so why the rush now?

In my experience, those who rush others into decisions are scam artists.

[delrem]

117. They don't want a reasoned decision after debate among an informed population.

They want the "debate" to be along the lines of "I trust Obama -- because he's a good guy" and "So, you support Rand Paul!" and "did you see the cute kid on the pro-TPP ad on TV last night. squeee!"

It's disgusting.

[Joe Worker]

135. I hate to remind everyone

But the last GOP majority in congress was infamous for vacations, taking time off, and solving no issues.

[sabrina 1]

49. Fast Track means that Congress gives up its right to negotiate this Trade Deal, and its role in our

system of checks and balances, and passes that power to the Executive Branch, for six years I believe.

It means that Corporations who write these bills, don't have to deal with Congress (and by extension the American people) but have only the President, who has already told us how wonderful he thinks it is, to deal with.

It is beginning to look like every President from now on will be required to try to Fast Track Trade Bills Written by corporations, by-passing Congress and straight to the Executive Branch.

I say this because Bush, at almost the same time frame in HIS administration, 2007, as Obama's right now, tried to do the same thing. To Fast Track a Trade Bill. It was defeated.

I have seen people here say that this is okay, because they 'trust Obama'. Will they trust a Republican with that same power? Maybe we should not have opposed Bush's Fast Tracking of a Trade Bill after all, by that logic. Because as I understand it, had he succeeded, Obama would have inherited that power.

I believe this will fail again, too many Democrats oppose it, and several Republicans, same as last time. Not to mention all the Unions, Environmental groups, Internet Freedom groups etc.

[winter is coming]

93. +1. That's too much power to hand to any President. I don't care how much you trust them. n/t

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. Elizabeth Warren~ The Peoples Champion

[Logical]

13. Obama is wrong on this! nt

[B2G]

15. Damn straight. nt

[DCBob]

18. The main point of Fast Track is to eliminate the flood of admendments..

that, if allowed, would certainly come and would effectively kill the bill.

[salib]

109. Again, what is the urgent NEED for this thing?

Why is it so important that we have to give up Congress' ability to slow down the process.

Why?

[DCBob]

114. I think the concern is that it would if opened up for amendments it become a fiasco..

and the bill would die permanently.

[Fearless]

116. The bill IS the fiasco!

[salib]

157. No, I think you misunderstood.

What is the NEED for the TPA? And more importantly what is the need for the TPP that is so compelling that we need the TPA to pass it?

[DCBob]

158. No. I think I got it.

[salib]

159. No, because if you "got it" you would provide a good faith response.

The question I asked is why do we need the TPP in the first place. What is so compelling that we have to have fast track (TPA)?

[DCBob]

160. Reread this thread.. I'm sure you can figure it out.

[geek tragedy]

22. The media is playing up the disagreement to make it seem really nasty

when in reality this is pretty much just a debate on policy.

It's asking a lot for people to support something they don't know much about, by design.

[Enthusiast]

43. The media? Imagine that. They're useless. Worse than useless.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[sabrina 1]

50. Where did you stand when Bush, at the same point in his administration, tried to Fast Track a Trade

bill?

[SixString]

23. DU Rec.

[pampango]

25. Elizabeth has my vote if she wants it, but our republican congress will never "write an amendment

fixing" a provision "hidden in the fine print" that "waters down environmental or labor rules". In fact, their corporate backers would have been the ones who put such a provision in there to begin with.

The real problem arises if there are enforceable 'environmental and labor rules' in the final agreement. Our corporate-influenced, republican-led congress will water down, or eliminate entirely, any effective environmental or labor rules if they get the chance to write any "amendments" they want.

[sufrommich]

27. I'm sure they would include their favorite anti choice

language too. That being said,I want to see the details of the agreement,I agree with Warren just let us see the final agreement so we can decide for ourselves.

[JustAnotherGen]

33. Plus 1000 n/t

[mimi85]

61. The sad thing is that....

the average American has absolutley no idea what the TPP is - or cares.

[jwirr]

77. You are correct but a lot of them got stung by NAFTA and they equate the two. IF those of us who

are activists can get a good look at it we can work on their understanding. I can just imagine Ed Schultz if he could read it. He alone would tell it like it is.

[treestar]

57. that's why it works both ways

If they don't like it, they can reject it. If they like it, they can't make amendments to it to water things down.

So this whole Fast Track thing is just used to confuse people, along with the "secret" negotiations, as if US laws can be changed by a treaty.

[truebrit71]

34. The fact that the republicans are all enthused about the TPP should be all the warning necessary..

...

[Enthusiast]

41. +1

[ananda]

37. I was hoping she would!

Thank you, Senator Warren!

[Enthusiast]

39. Mr. President, if this TPP is so fucking great, what's the rush?

The American people don't want it. And we certainly don't want a secret version. We have had quite enough of these job killing trade deals.

[YOHABLO]

124. Obama does a little bit over here, for the common folk, and a little bit over there for the rich.

It's all about legacy, libraries, and speaking engagements.

[Joe Worker]

138. Legacy of a bigger and

more destructive trade agreement than Willy?

[Joe Worker]

139. But, but if

we don't....... the Chinese will write their own rules!

It sounds like the Big Oil and Energy Mafia that also tell us that if we cut back on global warming and pollution that the Chinese will get away with it. (Children arguing over Christmas presents?)

Lets let our own citizens decide whether we want to sacrifice our sovereignty to some some foreign tribunal that is intent on making this globe called earth a throwback world of Haves and Have Nots.

[Enthusiast]

141. I don't like that throwback world. Too many lack a proper knowledge of history to judge

exactly what is going on here, the great potential for harm.

[MissDeeds]

44. Go get 'em, Elizabeth!

K&R

[Koinos]

47. Tribunals

Simply put, TPP would give corporate tribunals final say in litigation of corporations against governments. According to the treaty, these tribunals could levy fines against nations for regulations that impair the profit-taking of corporations deemed harmed by these regulations. Regulations which could be overthrown by these tribunals could include nations' drug regulations, workers rights rules, and "fair use" copyright exceptions.

See: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/12/trade-deals-will-supplant-democracy-corporate-tribunals-warn-critics

[ChiciB1]

48. What A Lady, What A Fighter...

Thank you Senator Warren, wish you had some fairy dust to spread around, it's so very much needed!

[Helen Borg]

51. Well done Liz...

Remember who Obama is. The guy who did not appoint you as Head the Consumer Protection Bureau...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. Now we will hear that there isn't TIME to do that. It needs to go into effect NOW.

[Hoyt]

54. If Warren would take a second to think about it, Congress could ask Obama and trade reps to go back

to the negotiating table if there is something really onerous.

Congress to Obama, "We don't like such-and-such, while we can't amend it, we can vote NO on the agreement unless you get it fixed."

Once again, Americans will get to see it, at least 90 days before it is voted on, perhaps longer. Of course, we've already seen most of it, it's just hard to comprehend with folks like Warren playing politics and spreading misinformation.

[KMOD]

75. Hoyt, you were alerted on

On Wed Apr 22, 2015, 01:54 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

If Warren would take a second to think about it, Congress could ask Obama and trade reps to go back
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6549132

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"it's just hard to comprehend with folks like Warren playing politics and spreading misinformation."

I ask you: Does referring to a popular Democrat as though she was a wingnut ("with folks like Warren&quot and accusing her of "playing politics and spreading misinformation" seem to run counter to this forum's purpose, and maybe something that would be ordinarily be seen on a right-wing website? It certainly does to me, and seems to conform to the following TOS violation: "Don't do anything else which is similarly disruptive.

Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok. If you post anything which is obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community, its members, or its values, you risk being in violation of these Terms of Service."

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 22, 2015, 02:07 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There is no question in my mind that Hoyt is a malicious right-wing intruder. I knew this from about a couple weeks ago for sure, but this alerted post underscores my conviction. I will vote to hide each and every post he contributes here to DU, from this point forward. But even on the merits of the alert, I agree with the alerter, and so I vote to hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: OK, you think this is another RW troll stirring it up. I don't know and don't care. Deal with the words on the screen and debate them without using alerts to avoid a proper argument.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stop playing games. The President himself said last night that some were playing politics with the issue, and that some were misinformed. Nobody called her a wingnut, except you, alerter.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the alerter needs to take a chill pill...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hoyt is heartily for TPP fast tracking, as all of his posts attest. I may disagree, but I'm not finding anything particularly disruptive here. Ignoring might help.

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

[Hoyt]

78. Thanks. Far from a RW troll. I wonder what folks think of the unfounded criticism of Obama?

I guess that's just fine.

[KMOD]

87. I know, right.

[LondonReign2]

89. Nah, just a proud Third Wayer

[Cha]

119. No, Hoyt is a Democrat on Democratic Board. Skinner is a Hillary supporter.. you going to call him

one of your "3rd wayer" insults?

[sufrommich]

94. Juror #1 needs to be removed from the jury pool.

Admitting that you're alerting based on who the poster is should be an automatic ban from juries.

[Doctor_J]

126. Are you kidding? that happens constantly

[Joe Worker]

137. Oh come on!

If you follow the threads he does indeed appear to be disruptive. I am new and even I can see that!

[pampango]

95. Juror #1: I will vote to hide each and every post he contributes here to DU, from this point forward

I thought the idea of the jury was to hide or leave alone posts based on the content of the post not based on what we thought of the poster. Weird explanation for a vote!

I have been on many juries dealing with posters with whom I routinely disagree but I have not and never would vote to hide a post based on who posted it. If I thought a poster was violating a TOS I might alert and let MIRT deal with it but I would not routinely us jury votes against a poster.

[KMOD]

97. It was very weird.

I wonder if the admins know who the jurors are. Juror 1 is admitting to harassment.

.

[sufrommich]

98. I think the admins do know who the juries are. There's an

alert button on jury results,I hope someone on the jury alerted on it.

[Cha]

122. Those little thin skinned alerters can't take any

disagreement.

Mahalo KMOD

[SoapBox]

55. THIS is exactly what I want her and Bernie to continue to do.

I wish there we more Dems that would get a spine and start yelling.

President Obama, just be honest...if you hide bad stuff in this, it will be a big, bad mark on other achievements.

[Cha]

123. I have no doubt that President Obama is being "honest".

[treestar]

56. Well of course we will see before it is voted on

If they can't make amendments and don't like it, they can vote to reject it.

And she's made no arguments to support her position.

[think]

60. The vast majority of the House Dems are also against fast tracking TPP. It's not just Warren...

[BeanMusical]

90. Please stop posting facts, it makes people belonging to a loud but tiny minority very uncomfortable.

[Omaha Steve]

58. K&R!

[Jack Rabbit]

63. K/R

[whatchamacallit]

65. Sorry, arguments defending the secrecy and fast-tracking of the TPP are straight up sycophancy

What else explains twisting yourself into a pretzel to support something you'd never support from a republican president?

[ejbr]

70. +1

PLUS, given the nature of Republican priorities, their complete and utter disrespect for this president, and their willingness to let him move forward without their input is enough to give me pause.

[bigwillq]

67. K and R

[graegoyle]

68. What people seem to forget:

ALEC

Congress people are already supporting legislation they don't see, let alone study. How many of these congresspeople will sign onto fast track legislation when a superPAC promises support in their next campaigns?

[Puglover]

72. Gee she sounds reasonable to me.

Not and I quote, "" it's a pretty sorry spectacle to see educated adults like Sanders and Warren running around like a couple of Black Helicopter-fearing nutjobs" like one esteemed DUer noted this morning.

[BeanMusical]

92. Someone posted this? Wow, that's despicable.

[whatchamacallit]

104. Esteemed by other dimwitted authoritarians maybe n/t

[Logical]

121. LOL, the "esteemed" DUer sounds clueless to me. You sound scared of Warren. She would kick...

the crap our of Hillary in debate. Embarass her.

[99Forever]

74. Like I said yesterday :

Welcome to the list of people who embarrassed themselves by calling Elizabeth Warren wrong about facts, Mr President. Don't think for one second that We the People didn't notice.

[KMOD]

76. I have a couple questions.

Do President's usually have fast track authority on Trade agreements, or is this something new?

What is the harm in allowing Congress to make amendments to trade agreements?

[sufrommich]

79. I really don't know the answer to your first question.

As to your second question,I think adding amendments to bills dealing with other nations has been abused in the past by anti choice fanatics,but the answer to that problem isn't fast tracking.

[KMOD]

88. Thanks.

I guess I don't understand the reluctance to letting Congress amend the agreement.

[Luminous Animal]

106. Bill Clinton didn't.

[Doctor_J]

127. Obama and the republicans are afraid that the Dems will want to include wage and safety protections

and possibly limit the power of corporations to override or ignore laws they don't like.

[KMOD]

128. It looks like wage and safety protections have been addressed

http://www.finance.senate.gov/download/?id=FEC41212-F7AF-4A6D-BF83-978401999DAF

[pampango]

145. In your opinion a Boehner-McConnell led congress will vote "to include wage and safety protections

and possibly limit the power of corporations to override or ignore laws they don't like" if they are not in the final agreement Obama signs off on?

I have not seen any evidence that the republican-controlled congress has shown any inclination to expand wage and safety protections (or environmental standards for that matter) and limit corporate power. I think it is much more likely that Boehner-McConnell, et. al. will vote to EXCLUDE "wage and safety protections and possibly" EXPAND "the power of corporations to override or ignore laws they don't like".

[Doctor_J]

146. in your opinion a law that huge numbers of dems are against should be passed?

[pampango]

149. But I'll answer yours if you answer mine. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Well ...

If most of the trade deal is good for the American economy, but there’s a provision hidden in the fine print that could help multinational corporations ship American jobs overseas or allow for watering down of environmental or labor rules, fast track would mean that Congress couldn’t write an amendment to fix it,” Warren wrote. “Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it.”

It's gone from "there is fine print that ..." to "IF there is fine print that ..." Well that's progress.

And to the "no amendment" part ... IF there isn't that "fine print that ... ", the no amendment part stops the gop from adding abortion bans, SSM bans, ACA bans, cuts to SS/Medicare/Medicaid, and about a 1,000 other things on the gop wish list.

[shanti]

82. k&r for the TRUTH

thank you for standing up for us, senator warren!

[GeorgeGist]

84. Fast track means they're in a hurry ...

but they never admit why.

[LittleGirl]

86. Give 'em Hell Elizabeth

If there is nothing to hide, then let the senators read the fucking bill and vote on it.

[democrank]

91. Kicking for Elizabeth.

She`s courageous and genuine and doesn`t need a focus group to figure out where she stands.

[Bill USA]

100. why is this not on Politics 2015 where is would get more exposure (stuff on GD moves off 1st pg fast

recommended!

[AzDar]

101. Go Elizabeth!!

[Eleanors38]

103. Peculiar, Obama saves up his quick jabs for fellow Democrats, not the GOP.

[Enthusiast]

154. I have always found that peculiar.

[Eleanors38]

156. His references to opposition by the GOPers is soft, non confrontational and general...

But the hard-hitting stuff is saved for the remnants of Democratic progressivism, no intermediaries or surrogates. He does it.

[Faryn Balyncd]

105. If FT is passed, FT will require a supermajority to remove a proposed "trade" agreement from FT

It is essential that FT be defeated & that Congress not surrender its leverage to amend and to threaten filibuster.

[Jefferson23]

107. K&R

[MoonRiver]

110. Good! Warren is awesome!

[RiverLover]

113. Yes she is! One in a million, we're lucky to have her working for US!! /nt

[wildbilln864]

111. k & r & thanks! n/t

[cheapdate]

125. Political writers stoke up an honest disagreement and DU laps it up.

Warren "lashes out" at Obama, she "fires back" and "accuses" him of something.

Ugh. Not surprised by the press and not really surprised by DU.

Obama stated that he and Warren disagreed over some aspects of the TPP. Warren responded with some specific statements and questions.

Could be an honest disagreement and discussion over policy and expectations. But that doesn't get clicks.

[blkmusclmachine]

129. http://jarkesypolitical.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ObamaShhh4-e1358519562147.jpg

[midnight]

130. Tpp is another corporate giveaway... Thanks Ms. Warren.

[Joe Worker]

136. You are wrong

because I am President and I say so! LOL!

[lonestarnot]

147. Is that what he said Joe Worker?

Welcome to DU

[UCmeNdc]

143. 100% Correct!

[lonestarnot]

148. Yeah doesn't sound good to me either Senator.

[Pooka Fey]

150. Thank goodness for Elizabeth Warren

[4139]

152. Cool!!!!!!