Why is President Obama pushing so hard for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Pact?

[cali]

Why has he made it one of his top priorities?

The TPP is an enormous gift to corporations like Monsanto and Walmart and people like the Koch brothers. It undermines workers' rights, the environment, internet freedom and more.

The TPP grants explicitly grants corporations powers that supersede the laws of nations.

President Obama has made the TPP a high priority and wants to pass it by passing fast track which means the Senate would have to vote on it but would have no right to amend or filibuster it.

Congress has had no input into it but corporations have hundreds of representatives helping to craft it. Hell, Congress critters haven't even been allowed a a glimpse at the TPP.

As has been frequently said, the TPP is NAFTA on steroids.

http://www.citizen.org/TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023139237
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

[MrSlayer]

1. Because the owners want it.

This will really cut the legs off of the American worker, just as they want.

When Nader used his famous "dimes worth of difference" line. This is what he meant. It had nothing to do with the social issues that people often site to "prove" Democrats are better.

They aren't, not by more than a dime's worth.

[TheMadMonk]

35. Social issues are how they get progressives to swallow...

...crap like these "Free Trade" agreements.

It's how progressives are kept "engaged" in the electoral process and given the illusion that they are making a choice/difference.

And social issues are how the "regressives" are kept riled up.

And how both are kept from forming common ground with each other against those who have the best interests of neither at heart.

[Laelth]

36. Very insightful. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[Zorra]

37. ^^THIS RIGHT HERE^^ IS

Democrats are much better on social issues, and this traps us into voting against republicans.

The game is rigged. Democracy is just an illusion in the US.

Meanwhile, Democrats move forward with 1% global economic agenda, and the 1% gains more control of governments, resources, factors and means of production, etc. with each passing day, strangling democracy and liberty at the same time.

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. he great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dict ates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[MrSlayer]

39. Agreed.

That's the game in a nutshell.

[cali]

40. so damned true. so damned frustrating.

[TheMadMonk]

42. And their other trick. Keep appealing to progressive...

...values, and the idea of fair play, when "they" have absolutely no intention of doing likewise.

[pampango]

48. It is working. repubilcans, particularly tea partiers, are the most critical of 'free trade'.

republicans - the base not the politicians - oppose it 54% to 28%, while tea partiers go them one better and oppose it 63% to 24%.

The only group that supported 'free trade' was Democrats (perhaps distracted by social issues as you suggest) who favored it by 40% to 35%.

[ljm2002]

56. That is it in a nutshell...

...nicely summed up.

Unfortunately, the social issues do get us all riled up, and it's easy to identify those we're with and those we're against. When it comes to economic issues, though, the lines are much more muddy. That is of course by design, as it keeps us Little People from seeing the .01% for who and what they really are.

Well maybe we'll figure it out someday before it's too late.

[Safetykitten]

57. Exactly

[ProSense]

2. Maybe

"Congress has had no input into it but corporations have hundreds of representatives helping to craft it. Hell, Congress critters haven't even been allowed a a glimpse at the TPP."

...the Senate should have held out for more information before confirming the trade rep.

Senate confirms Froman as next trade representative

By Jim Abrams

Michael Froman, a senior White House economic adviser and classmate of President Obama at Harvard Law School, won Senate confirmation Wednesday to be the next U.S. trade representative.

The confirmation vote was 93 to 4, elevating Froman, 50, to the head of an agency now involved in two of the most significant deals in recent history.

“In his new position, Mike will stay focused on our primary economic goals — promoting growth, creating jobs and strengthening the middle class,” Obama said in a statement lauding the action. “And he will continue to help open new markets for American businesses, level the playing field for American workers, farmers and ranchers, and fully enforce our trade rights.”

Voting against Froman were an independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and three Democrats: Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Warren said in a floor speech that she was voting against the nominee because he would not commit to more transparency on positions taken by the United States and other countries in trade talks.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/senate-confirms-froman-as-next-trade-representative/2013/06/19/d0a311e2-d934-11e2-a9f2-42ee3912ae0e_story.html

Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00158

Still, Congress does have to ratify any treaty.

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): 18th Round of TPP Negotiations Set for Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia -- July 15-24, 2013
http://www.ustr.gov/tpp

[leftstreet]

4. Wow! You're saying the Senate should betray Obama?

...the Senate should have held out for more information before confirming the trade rep.

That's shocking coming from you! But apparently you're open to a discussion of what a horrible trade agreement this appears to be, and that's a good thing

[DJ13]

3. You answered your own question

"The TPP is an enormous gift to corporations like Monsanto and Walmart and people like the Koch brothers. It undermines workers' rights, the environment, internet freedom and more."


Modern Presidents make more after leaving office than in office.

No freebies to corporations, no $1m speaking gigs at corporations afterwards.

[mick063]

5. President Obama will set us back two decades or more.

I had hopes that he would be the best President in my lifetime.

Now he is a strong candidate for worst. I hope the historians treat him with contempt. I hope he sets the standard for what all Democrats in the future, wish to avoid. Make him the poster child for ultimate political betrayal.

Yes I do feel this much contempt. Only two years ago, I contributed a week's pay to his campaign, so obviously, I didn't start with this agenda. The President's record forced me there. I will always, at every opportunity, vilify this administration.

[Demo_Chris]

9. Pretty much. nt

[graham4anything]

31. that is a big strawman. Anyone in the public sector makes less than the private.

anyone in the private sector makes more than the public sector, so the stat obviously is true

However, after leaving the Presidency, Barack Obama most likely will be nominated by President Clinton, and confirmed US Supreme Court Justice,
therefore will remain in the public sector forever.
(And Michelle will also be in a public sector job for years to come)

Eisenhower made millions after leaving office, when money was worth less, and so did Truman.
Of course, FDR was a billionaire before he became President

And even non-presidents become millionaires, like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader( and others who ran 3rd party like Ross Perot is one of the richest people ever), and one can name tens of thousands of other examples.

Let alone political singers like say Roger Waters who is mega rich, or the Eagles who charge $1000 a ticket to see them)

[treestar]

6. Is he?

[cali]

16. yes. he is.

[treestar]

26. if you say so

your objectivity is impeccable.

[cali]

38. oh ffs, it's hardly a secret

US President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Monday stressed the importance of completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.

The two leaders discussed the TPP and bilateral ties in their phone conversation, as Rudd returned to the premiership on Thursday following his victory in a ruling Labor Party caucus ballot the evening before, in which Rudd beat Julia Gillard,then head of the party and the prime minister.

"The two leaders also discussed the importance of completing the high standard Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement," the White House said in a statement.

<snip>

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/793131.shtml#.UdMHFNisp7k

That's from yesterday.

The TPP has been a priority of President Obama's for years:

Obama pushes trans-Pacific trade deal at APEC

<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/12/politics/obama-apec

Obama Hosts Peru’s Humala in Push for Pacific Trade Deal
<snip>

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-11/obama-hosts-peru-s-humala-in-push-for-trans-pacific-trade-deal.html

I could post hundreds of links PROVING that he's pushed this big time. Now I expect you to ignore this post because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

[East Coast Pirate]

21. Huh?

His administration is crafting it.

[treestar]

25. that and "pushing so hard"

are two different things.

IMO this is another ginned up outrage. We'll see when the treaty is finished what it says.

[cali]

44. yeah, like NAFTA was just a ginned up outrage

and I notice that you didn't respond to my post PROVING that President Obama is pushing this.

in your head, everything is a ginned up outrage. well, nevermind. just return to posting adoring pics of the President. That's just where you are.

[treestar]

49. You have proved nothing

Merely stated your opinion.

NAFTA has zippo to do with this. We will see what it says when it's finished. In the meantime, outrage request is denied.

[Octafish]

7. Cause it's good, like NAFTA.

While it wasn't very good for the middle-class and poor, NAFTA did work out quite well for Wall Street.

And Wall Street rewards its friends. Yes, it does.

[davidn3600]

8. Because the corporations want it.

[Demo_Chris]

10. President Obama does not work for us. nt

[KoKo]

11. He's Been CAPTURED? What else could it be? n/t

[pa28]

12. We're used to the word "capture" being used in reference to individual agencies or departments.

We need to realize the concept of capture has extended to entire governments.

[Recursion]

13. Because ag wants it very badly

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:27 AM - Edit history (1)

And ag has inordinate influence

[Kolesar]

28. That is probably 95% of the reason

There may be some American companies who can export products, but it is really about selling grain.

[NightWatcher]

14. Clinton had NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT.

Maybe it's a deal Dem presidents strike with some smoke filled room full of the powers that be.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Because he supports free trade.

As Paul Krugman said, "If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."

[cali]

17. this is, as many have noted, less about trade than total deregulation

TPP: A Deregulation Treaty Not A Trade Treaty

The upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is using a process that is rigged from the start. It is not being negotiated by governments for the benefit of their people, it is being negotiated by executives (or future executives/lobbyists currently in government) largely for the benefit of the giant corporations they serve. The process has these giant corporations “in the loop” but citizens groups, working people, consumers, the environment, human rights groups and especially democracy are not part of the process. That can only go one way: if you don’t have a seat at the table you are on the table — the meal.

Rodrigo Contreras, Chile’s lead TPP negotiator recently up and quit to warn people of the dangers this agreement poses to everyone except the giant multinational corporations. In The New Chessboard, (English translation) Contreras warns that the TPP is solidifying multinational corporate control over the Internet, copyrights, patents (especially drug patents), and in particular warns that the giant financial interests are solidifying their current control over the regulatory process. He writes that this will block countries that are trying to “restore the space for applying financial safeguards. In these circumstances it does not makes sense to further liberalize capital flows, depriving us of legitimate tools to safeguard financial stability.”
<snip>

http://blog.ourfuture.org/20130523/tpp-a-deregulation-treaty-not-a-trade-treaty

[Populist_Prole]

18. Same reason Clinton was heavily bullish on NAFTA, GATT, MFN and "fast track" negotiation of same

It's partly ideological and partly the knowledge of of whose bread is buttered. I'm sure he believes in good faith that "free trade" is good, or at least good enough to provide a plausible deniabilty to defend it with a straight face long enough to get it done and please the corporate masters.

[HiPointDem]

19. because the rulers have a 5 year plan & a 10 year plan and a 50 year plan.

[cali]

20. they don't need a 50 year plan.

they're getting it done at warp speed.

[cali]

22. How the TPP could effect the internet

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) has sparked much debate over its many chapters, but many discussions have thus far overlooked the serious consequences the TPP’s copyright provisions could have for internet freedom and emerging technologies.

Those who have been following the TPP negotiations know the TPP is a trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and eight other countries bordering the Pacific Ocean that holds major implications concerning international copyright law. Excessive copyright protections in the TPP would not only affect producers and distributors of content, but also stifle the ability of technology companies to make products that can be used to copy, store, access, use, and repurpose copyrighted works, and threaten users’ ability to utilize digital technology to use content in new ways.

Before any public interest advocate can begin a meaningful analysis of the TPP, it is important to note that the TPP has been negotiated under shocking levels of secrecy, so consumer advocates can only rely on outdated leaks of the text to evaluate the public harms the TPP would cause. While the U.S. Trade Representative has been willing to receive comment from the public, meaningful transparency cannot exist until the USTR publicly responds to public interest groups’ analysis, or officially confirms what negotiating objectives the USTR is seeking in negotiations.

Some say the USTR must operate in secrecy to achieve its negotiating goals, but this is cold comfort if the provisions the USTR secretly seeks would stifle internet freedom or user rights and fail to actually incentivize new creative works. The TPP copyright provisions in particular are not limited to provisions on trade and tariffs—they would require countries to implement detailed substantive provisions of copyright law, which affects users, technology companies, and creators alike. These provisions are much more akin to domestic legislation than they are to trade quotas or tariffs, and therefore the process and substance of the TPP should be as transparent as we expect domestic legislation to be. Otherwise, consumers will be in a position with little time to act and with little information to act on. The public should be involved in these conversations that may decide the fate of the world’s most innovative communicative resources.

<snip>

http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/opinion/1505-the-costs-of-copyright-in-the-tpp

[East Coast Pirate]

23. Because the other side is always worse.

So we'll put up with anything.

Yes, the game is rigged.

[kentuck]

24. Because...

He needs to do something when his 2nd term is over....

[Democracyinkind]

27. Go ask Penny.

[cali]

29. huh?

but thanks for the kick.

[Democracyinkind]

30. Strange. I thought you had me on ignore...

Penny Pritzker - I think Obama's relationship to her and the likes of her goes a long way in explaining his support for TPP.

Thank you for all of your important and enlightening threads through the last weeks.



edit: Since I thought you were ignoring me, I wasn't really clear in my first post. That's why I mentioned it...

[cali]

34. no, I don't have you on ignore. Don't know why you thought that.

and you're welcome.

When I think of Penny, all I ever think of is this dog I had once who chewed up everything- from window sills to furniture legs to toys.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Because he is a corporate globalist whose prime directive is the care, blessing,

and satisfaction of "the stakeholders"

[forestpath]

33. Selling out is what Obama does best.

[LWolf]

41. Because he is a neoliberal. nt

[antigop]

43. and who took a "leading part" in drafting the TPP?

According to Business Week, the "inevitable" one....

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1

She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.

I guess she picked up where Bill left off.

All those million miles....

[pampango]

45. "It is the Obama administration’s avowed aim to construct a TPP with standards so high -

especially with regards to the environment, labor rights and rules regarding behavior by state-owned enterprises — that China could never join without transforming its economic system.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/12/10/u-s-china-economic-relations-in-the-wake-of-the-u-s-election/

...the negotiation is subject to the U.S. domestic politics. At the very beginning of the negotiation, the United States reminded other countries that the U.S. Congress would not accept a TPP without strong labor and environmental measures. Obviously, the United States aims to lower the comparative advantages of developing countries so as to create more job opportunities for itself.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8113289.html

[Ilsa]

46. What can we do to stop it?

If they are hell-bent on fucking us over, what can we do?

[cali]

47. well, calling your rep and telling him/her that

you oppose trade promotion authority aka fast track and calling your Senators and letting them know that you oppose the TPP. And we can all work toward raising awareness about it.

[dawg]

50. They wants it.

And they'll have it precious. Oh yesssss! They will.

[Progressive dog]

51. Why do we expect Congress to rubberstamp

whatever is negotiated?
Why are the other countries keeping the pact secret?
Who says it's NAFTA on steroids?

[cali]

52. well, if President Obama has his way, they'll have no choice

but to reject it or vote for it. If the President gets the TPA, the Senate will have to vote up or down on it, no amendments or filibustering.

Other countries are pulling the same thing that the U.S. is. That hardly justifies either the level of secrecy or the 600 corporate advisers who have full access to the drafts and who are NOT counterbalanced by representatives from workers advocacy groups or environmental organizations or internet freedom organizations. That's one reason that the Sierra Club and the Electronic Frontier oppose the TPP.

I say it's NAFTA on steroids, but so do a number of journalists and analysts.

[Progressive dog]

53. I thought fast track had expired

[pampango]

54. It has expired. The republican House and Democratic Senate would both

have to pass new authorization for it to be relevant - not very likely.

[cali]

55. It has, which is why I said push it through Congress

Froman has said that's a top priority.

[PufPuf23]

58. Corporate tool. nt

[Recursion]

59. Soy beans and cowhides

Our two biggest exports to Asia, it turns out. Like all trade provisions, this one favors US agriculture and non-US manufacturing.

[limpyhobbler]

60. Because he really believes in it maybe? That or he is a corporate prostitute. take your pick. nt