HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Hillary Clinton and Trade...

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 09:25 AM

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/hillary-clinton-trade-deals-giant-sucking-sound.html

Understandably, Hillary Clinton backtracked on NAFTA in 2008 (backtracked as a Democrat, I should say, to avoid the “marital discord” trope), but of course by then the damage was done.

...

“A little time out.” Now, I’m not necessarily averse to politicians who backtrack from a policies that are against my values and interests (take that, Edmund Burke) but I would like to know that they don’t then unbacktrack their backtracking, because that confuses my simple mind. And surely, as Secretary of State during Obama’s first term, she would have been privy to the negotiation of future trade deals. So what does she think about them?
....


Here again it makes sense to look at Hillary has to say about trade deal in Hard Choices, the baseline she laid down if she should choose to run again. Here are the findings:

Rather thin, especially given Clinton’s focus on commerce at State. You’ll notice, first, that oddly, or not, Clinton has nothing to say about NAFTA, unless the oblique reference to “learned the hard way” counts. And she has nothing to say about TTIP, TISA, or GATS. Here’s what she has to say about TPP:

It makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement.



Well, no, it doesn’t. First, if fast track passes — Hard Choices has nothing to say about “fast track,” either — TPP is a pig in a poke; pressure will be so immense to pass it that judgment will be hard to exercise; that’s what fast track is for!

22 replies, 2959 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound” (Original post)
antigop Sep 2014 OP
djean111 Sep 2014 #1
antigop Sep 2014 #2
roguevalley Sep 2014 #12
Enthusiast Sep 2014 #6
adirondacker Sep 2014 #11
yurbud Sep 2014 #19
antigop Sep 2014 #3
NYC_SKP Sep 2014 #4
Enthusiast Sep 2014 #5
whereisjustice Sep 2014 #7
4dsc Sep 2014 #8
roguevalley Sep 2014 #13
tularetom Sep 2014 #9
Hoppy Sep 2014 #10
blkmusclmachine Sep 2014 #14
DavidG_WI Sep 2014 #22
OhioChick Sep 2014 #15
antigop Sep 2014 #16
OhioChick Sep 2014 #17
antigop Sep 2014 #18
OhioChick Sep 2014 #20
antigop Sep 2014 #21

Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 09:45 AM

1. Here is what we would be looking forward to (and all those who say the ACA will lead to single payer

 

have another think coming, if/when the TPP is forced upon us) :

http://www.correntewire.com/slovakias_legal_battle_to_implement_single_payer_vs_special_corporate_rights_under_free_trade

Recap: Slovaks were fed up with the ever rising cost of health insurance, so in 2006, they elected a government that ran on a platform promising to limit the profits of the insurers and transition to single payer.

However, a previous government had- back in the 1990s, signed one of those (quite inappropriately named, we will see) "free trade agreements", which had the kinds of clauses which a lot of the others have too (in the US, going back to NAFTA and GATS) limiting what they could do. It created these new "rights" - under investor-state. If anything the country did adversely effected any multinational corporations business interests, the corporations "rights" came first!

If Slovaks wanted their freedom, they would now have to pay.

But, in what is now clearly a pattern, they didn't realize this so in 2006 they passed this health reform law, the first part of the law was to limit the profits of health insurers, the second part was to end commercial for profit and transition to single payer, nonprofit, but they didn't get that far, because a multinational, an insurer sued them for what countries should have a right to do, adjust to changing conditions! Then in a second case the insurer sued them for what appears to me to be what they consider to be a "taking" of their "property" They lost because the panel said they had to wait until Slovakia actually implemented the law

(Slovakia said they could no longer afford to since the first decision had taken their money) So the insurer actually won because the country's people's rights were frustrated.


Under the trade agreement, enacting single payer causes private insurance to lose profits.

I have the feeling, and I hope I am wrong, that Fast Track will just get another cute name and the TPP and all the other "free trade" agreements will be dumped on us before 2016, so that they cannot be attached to a certain prospective Dem candidate. I have noticed that anything Hillary was fond of, like the TPP is, of course, Obama's fault, and Hillary was just a placeholder, doing Obama's bidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 09:51 AM

2. I seem to remember that "just following orders" wasn't a valid defense. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 03:34 PM

12. between saying Kissinger is a great guy and this, I could shoot myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:21 AM

6. +1 a whole bunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 01:44 PM

11. Excellent post! Thanks for the info. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 7, 2014, 09:08 PM

19. awesome, depressing example. I wonder if that's why we didn't get single payer too.

or if it was just the corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 09:53 AM

3. Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department (leading part in drafting TPP)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:06 AM

4. Draft Senator Warren for President, 2016 (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:19 AM

5. Kicked and recommended! I agree!

"Well, no, it doesn’t. First, if fast track passes — Hard Choices has nothing to say about “fast track,” either — TPP is a pig in a poke; pressure will be so immense to pass it that judgment will be hard to exercise; that’s what fast track is for!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:23 AM

7. Trade Deals: Because we just don't have enough poverty and disparity in the USA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:39 AM

8. So many things wrong with Hillary

 

I seem like every time she open her mouth she sound's more a like a republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4dsc (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 03:35 PM

13. the rich republicans who want Jeb said they would be able to support Hillary if Jeb

doesn't run because they 'like her'.

Kill me. Now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 10:48 AM

9. Hard Choices my ass, I can tell you what isn't a hard choice

Who not to vote for in your Democratic presidential primary in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 11:02 AM

10. WhatdafuxsamatterU? NAFTA's a dead issue. Obama said he's gonna fix it. Just give him time.

 

Last edited Sat Sep 6, 2014, 08:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoppy (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 6, 2014, 06:27 PM

14. Bwahahaha

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoppy (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 03:47 PM

22. Capitan Compromise And Fail to the rescue!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sun Sep 7, 2014, 11:33 AM

15. Screw all these free trade agreements

NAFTA decimated Ohio.

As for the TPP, why is this such a big fucking secret? (Negotiations, texts, etc.)

I think this line sums up HRC quite well: "she’s a free-trader at heart."


Thanks for posting, great article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #15)

Sun Sep 7, 2014, 11:42 AM

16. 'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them..."

'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.'"

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/16/headlines/sen_elizabeth_warren_criticizes_secrecy_of_trade_talks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 7, 2014, 11:47 AM

17. Elizabeth Warren really hit the nail on the head

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: "From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is: Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me, 'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.'"

I'm really impressed with her, everything that I've heard her speak of leads me to believe that she's truly on the side of the American People.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OhioChick (Reply #17)

Sun Sep 7, 2014, 01:22 PM

18. I'd like to know which "supporters of the deal" told her that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #18)

Fri Sep 12, 2014, 01:47 PM

20. You and I both n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Original post)

Sun Sep 14, 2014, 12:09 PM

21. kick. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread