Nothing demonstrates the corporate control of our government like the TPP

[cali]

The TPP is a brazen attempt by this administration to bypass Congress and permanently grant a nightmare corporate wishlist that places corporate "rights" over everything. That this is being done by a democratic administration is both a travesty and a tragedy.

The evidence for such a claim is not only in the leaked text that we've seen so far on copyright and "investor rights", it's right there in previous FTAs.

Many experts in various fields are pointing this out.

And look at who supports it. That in itself should be a big honking clue as to its deleterious impact on people- and not just people in this country.

SOPA was killed, but the corporate interests behind it, didn't even blink.

Can we stop the TPP and this final corporate coup d'etat?

We damn well better do everything we can, because if it isn't stopped, we no longer have even a semblance of a democracy left- and no, that's not hyperbole.

The TPP negotiations are reaching an end. The President has repeatedly says he wants them finished by the end of this year. The final begin this week in Salt Lake City.

Yes, there's opposition in the House, but it may not be enough and the arm twisting from leadership on both sides of the aisle is going to be extreme.

We're running out of time to stop this monstrosity.

[First Speaker]

1. Thank you for pressing this issue...

...your threads were where I first really heard of this. I've been trying, ever since, in my neck of the woods--southern CT--to get people to realize what's happening. I thought at first the provisions of this abomination were something out of the *Onion*. I just couldn't believe it was real. Alas--I've learned better... ...

[cali]

2. thank you. I'm hoping that next week there will be demonstrations

in SLC that bring this to the attention of more people.

[djean111]

3. I was just reading about the proposed EU Seed law - requiring that only registered seeds on

an official list be sold - and looks like Monsanto has given up on forcing their GM seeds on individual EU countries, and swinging for the fence by influencing an EU law that requires commercial seeds to be only those seeds on a "list" - and by commercial, it means any seed company with over 10 employees, and all but small local growers being deemed commercial growers. Guess who will be influencing the List.

This seems like a microcosm of the intent of the TPP - corporations and banks have decided to stop fucking around with states and countries, they are going for the blanket, world-wide domination. Cheaper and more efficient. Who knows, some day it may be illegal to save or possess any seed at all not on a corporate list.

[Oilwellian]

40. I remember reading, long ago...

within a month after Iraq War II began, their indigenous farmers were forced to buy Monsanto's seeds because they managed to patent every indigenous seed in the world. Iraqi farmers could no longer use the seeds their farms created. And now that we control Iraq, Monsanto can enforce their patent on them. Welcome to the new world order.

[djean111]

43. Yes, wherever Monsanto cannot force their GM seeds on people, they are busily patenting regular

seeds. They intend to control all the seeds in the world, looks like.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. There doesn't seem to be anything about the TPP that

is positive for the average American. It's so horrible that it's almost cartoonish. I'm beginning to wonder if there's a 'Mark of the Beast' requirement in it somewhere. That's what happens when we let our government do one awful thing after another and we can barely get together a protest against it. We even re-elect the bastards.

How did so many of us become so disengaged that our elected officials suffer no consequences when they shit on us? Our problems go a lot deeper than official corruption. Americans have virtually abdicated our responsibility to hold our government accountable for anything.

[cali]

5. I'm not sure it's fair to place blame on disengagement

or at least much of it.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. Ultimately, it's the crooks fault. Regardless of circumstances, they are responsible

for what they do. However, if I leave my house open all the time and I don't report it when somebody robs me, chances are that it will continue. There are always dishonest people who will take advantage of others if they're never held accountable.

[cali]

9. that comparison reminds me of the comparison of

the running of the government to the running of a household.

It's reductive.

It's not the fault of the people that corporations have taken control of the government.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Do you understand the process by which learned helplessness is acquired?

It comes from an overwhelming set of experiences that ultimately convince you that nothing you do is gonna matter, that you have no control over your own destiny. This is, ultimately, the formula for apathy.

The American public has been subjected to a whole lot of such experiences. Voting doesn't seem to matter. Working for a candidate doesn't seem to matter. Living a good life & trying to play by the rules doesn't seem to matter. Struggling doesn't matter. The shit keeps falling. People finally give up.

[LuvNewcastle]

27. I'm not negating the fact that criminals are responsible for their crimes.

When people are charged in court, they aren't able to use the defense that it was just too easy, so it wasn't their fault, nor should they be allowed to do so. I'm not in any way trying to absolve crooked politicians and the people who bribe them for the crimes they commit.

But in a democracy, the people do have some responsibility for the government they have. They have considerably less responsibility in a monarchy or a dictatorship, but that's not what we have in the U.S., not yet anyway. There is corruption in our voting process, sure, but no one can rightfully say that our votes just don't matter. Considering how much we discuss candidates and elections on DU, most of us, by far, agree that elections do matter and it's important who we vote for.

I understand apathy. Sometimes I think, what is the point? But I also know that I have a responsibility to exercise my right to vote and elect candidates who I think will be honest and care about the people. We aren't that far gone yet.

We can change things if we educate ourselves about what's going on and what our government is doing and react accordingly. If we know that our Senator is corrupt, we are obligated to throw him out of office. It doesn't mean that he isn't responsible for what he did if he's re-elected, but it does mean that we are not being as responsible as we should be if we do re-elect him. For a democracy to work, the people must be aware of what's going on. Too much ignorance and apathy will destroy a democracy.

[fadedrose]

6. Sent WH an email opposing TPP nt

[cali]

7. thanks. that's a good reminder. I've contacted my reps

but not the WH. Will do so now.

[tritsofme]

10. I still don't see how TPA can pass the House.

It is a lot of power, especially on environmental and regulatory issues, to grant a president they despise.

[cali]

11. It can pass the House this time just the way it passed in 2002- narrowly

and with the assistance of a lot of political muscle from both sides of the aisle.

[tritsofme]

12. The lesson from 2002 is that a Republican president

at the height of his popularity could only get it through a Republican (more predisposed to support free trade than today) House by two votes.

After TPA expired in 1994, the House refused to grant it to President Clinton for the rest of his term, which may be the better example.

TPA is only useful to Obama if it includes authority on environmental and labor regulations, and the chances of that happening are just incredibly low.

[cali]

13. We agree to disagree. At this moment, the votes committed to defeat the TPA

aren't enough.

We'll see.

[tritsofme]

14. We will certainly see. I think you are under-appreciating the absolute toxcitiy on all levels

of the Republican Party, even/especially the business class, to essentially grant Obama carte blanche to negotiate on labor and environmental provisions.

That's what will kill this thing, I think a 2002 style TPA that lacked environmental and labor authority could squeak through the House. But this is not an acceptable solution for the purposes of TPP, as they would be forced to split it into two bills, and the regulatory bill lacking TPA protection would be gutted at will by Congress.

[cali]

16. I certainly hope you're right, but I think you're underestimating

both the corporate influence and bipartisan unity.

[polichick]

17. So who is Barack Obama? Why is he doing this?

[treestar]

18. Another thread?

Would you get some text out, please, to support the conclusions made?

[cali]

19. I have posted fucking dozens of posts with links and I've provided those links to

you before in other threads.

Who do you think you are fooling????

[treestar]

21. But you've brought no substance to the board

Frankly, these seems like a vanity issue for you.

The links are partisan, with conclusions. So you need to go deeper than that to have some substance.

And it's strange this is your expert subject, but you only want to talk in terms of conclusions. With all that expertise, one would think you'd have hit onto something substantive.

[cali]

23. that's simply false. you can keep making that claim but it won't make it any less false.

[cali]

26. In fact, virtually the only support for this comes from corporate entities

I've posted far more than just conclusions. Why don't you actually discuss what Susan Sell presents in the WaPo article I posted?

Because you can't discuss the particulars. You've made that clear.

Let's discuss one particular: Drugs.

<snip>

The leaked treaty text also reveals new American and Japanese proposals designed to enhance the ability of pharmaceutical manufacturers to extend and widen their patents on drugs and medicines.

Proposals with the potential to impact significantly on Australia’s Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme include a requirement that patents be available for new uses of existing drugs, effectively allowing for the "ever-greening" of existing patents.

The proposals also include compensation to companies for delays in the granting or extension of patents, and measures to ensure data exclusivity.

This would enable companies to prevent competitors, specifically manufacturers of generic medicines, from using past clinical safety data to support approval of new products.

Australia is recorded as having indicated opposition to these proposals, but the strength of this is unclear as neither the former Labor government nor the new Coalition government has publicly challenged the US position.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/trade-deal-could-be-bitter-medicine-20131113-2xh4p.html#ixzz2kpx1QQIQ


<snip>

The manuscript that WikiLeaks released showed that American mediators were going after a host of policies which might drive up medical costs by extending drug corporations’ and other companies’ domination on their products over the usual 20-year patent tenure. These provisions consist of criteria to extend patent terms, enlarge the conditions for which countries have to award drug patents, necessitate nations to issue newer patents where there are minor changes to a drug and create barriers to the use of pharmaceutical testing information. All of this aids in prevention of competition on the market from the generic form of drugs.

The United States has continually used political force against nations which tried to gain access to the generic versions of various AIDS drugs. America has also had numerous recent clashes with India over that country’s choice to give out a generic cancer drug that cost only $157 while the drug company Bayer was charging over $5,000 per month.

<snip>
http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/wikileaks-leaks-secret-international-trade-deal/

More. Much more:

http://www.law360.com/articles/482976/aarp-opposes-12-year-exclusivity-for-biologic-drugs-in-tpp

http://billmoyers.com/2013/10/29/the-trans-pacific-partnership-a-trade-agreement-for-protectionists/

Explained in very simple terms:

<snip>


1. It would hike prescription drug prices

The proposition makes the introduction of generic medicine more difficult in several ways, which means you'd be stuck paying for name brand drugs much longer. One part of the treaty grants pharmaceutical giants "data exclusivity" so that generic competitors can't use existing data to register the medicine, which unnecessarily delays the process of getting cheaper drugs to market.

<snip>

http://www.policymic.com/articles/73537/trans-pacific-partnership-5-reasons-why-this-matters-to-millennials

Now let's see you actually discuss this.

[treestar]

29. where do they get this?

The leaked treaty text also reveals new American and Japanese proposals designed to enhance the ability of pharmaceutical manufacturers to extend and widen their patents on drugs and medicines.

1. where does it say that? What does the text actually say that leads them to that conclusion?
2. is it necessarily a bad thing? They are entitled to patents for some period of time. Is this a bad thing? What of the other nine countries?
3. how much do we know of data exclusivity, and why should we just swallow the conclusion that it will delay anything?
4. why would American mediators try to increase our drug costs?

It'd be nice if we decided for ourselves.

So here's what Obama thinks:

The TPP will boost our economies, lowering barriers to trade and investment, increasing exports, and creating more jobs for our people, which is my number-one priority. Along with our trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, the TPP will also help achieve my goal of doubling U.S. exports, which support millions of American jobs.

Taken together, these eight economies would be America’s fifth-largest trading partner. We already do more than $200 billion in trade with them every single year, and with nearly 500 million consumers between us, there's so much more that we can do together.

I should assume he's lying? If he thinks this, it seems like it's probably a bit more complicated than you are making it out to be. There are many issues to it. I just don't believe Obama and his trade representatives are working as hard as they can to make things worse for Americans.

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

[cali]

31. holy shit. we're done. you actually support corporatism.

I've posted more than enough evidence for any reasonable person to see that the TPP, from what we've seen, is at best troubling.

You would support the President no matter what.

Your mindset- not the President- reminds me of some very troubling historical precedents found in the last century.

Unquestioning support is very dangerous.

I suppose I should be grateful for your vivid example of it.

[treestar]

37. You lost.

Holy shit, you won't discuss anything of substance. It's agree with you or be accused of "supporting corporatism." Whatever the hell that is. You have no idea what you are talking about. There's no reason anyone should follow your opinions on this subject. You can't support them. You can only call names.

[cali]

28. you've now demonstrated conclusively that you're not interested in actually

discussing the issues. I posted specifics about how the TPP would raise drug prices and extend patents and you ran away.

[treestar]

38. I asked questions you refused to answer

and only attacked me personally. You don't understand the subject no matter how many opinionated links you put down.

You aren't able to post anything that is part of the treaty, because you are afraid to actually look into the facts.

[cali]

41. I've answered your questions repeatedly and everyone reading can see that in thread

after thread.

[pa28]

20. It's likely the public still will not be able to see the whole document even after it's passed.

One of the leaked docs has classification guidance stating it should only be made public FOUR YEARS after implementation.

Obsessive secrecy like that is not the product of a healthy, transparent democracy. It means the administration is working directly against your interests as a member of the public.

[treestar]

22. How can a bill pass in Congress without the public knowing?

That is impossible as you damn well know.

[cali]

24. It will make no difference what the public knows if the TPA is passed

as the Senate (the house doesn't vote on it) will only be able to vote yea or nay.

pretty basic information that you appear unaware of.

blind partisanship is dangerous and bad for democracy.

[tritsofme]

33. You are incorrect. In all previous iterations of TPA, the House and Senate both vote.

In fact, as trade agreements almost always involve raising revenue, they must originate in the House.

TPA sets the terms of debate, the agreement cannot be amended and must receive a up or down vote in both chambers within a specified time-frame after being submitted.

This is pretty basic information you appear unaware of.

[cali]

42. I'm not referring to the TPA. I'm referring to the TPP. duh.

[tritsofme]

45. Um...agreements made under TPA (like TPP) still must be approved by both chambers. duh

Pretty basic stuff.

[cali]

46. The TPA must pass both chambers. The TPP will only be voted on in the Senate

[tritsofme]

47. You are wrong.

As I noted in my previous post, these trade agreements, like TPP, must almost always originate in the House, as they involve raising revenue.

Passing TPA does not eliminate the prerogative of the House, TPA only sets the terms of debate, the agreement cannot be amended and must receive a up or down vote in both chambers within a specified time-frame after being submitted.

[cali]

48. No, I'm not.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm

[tritsofme]

50. TPP would not be approved under the Senate's treaty power. That is the whole point of TPA.

Treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate, "congressional-executive agreements" under TPA require only a simple majority in both chambers.

See, you learned something today.

[pampango]

34. The House will also vote on this just as it has on every other trade agreement.

All previous ones were enacted by majorities in both houses of congress, not as treaties which would just have to pass the Senate by a 2/3 majority. I doubt the TPP will be any different.

For better or worse there is "bipartisanship" on both sides of the TPP debate.

[pa28]

25. No I don't "damn well" know.

The administration is determined to keep this agreement a secret. Explain the classification language on the document if it's not possible.

[treestar]

30. Before the Sunshine laws, Congress debated in secret

only revealing the finished product. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. They can't actually pass it without doing so in public.

That's why all of this is premature. When they have something they actually agreed to, it can be debated. In the meantime, it's all just speculation.

[polly7]

32. K&R cali for your perseverance with this.

I'll add another article I read a while ago that really got my attention as to just how much corporations stand to benefit from this obscene agreement.


A Corporate Coup in Disguise

By Jim Hightower

Source: Alternet

Wednesday, October 02, 2013

What if our national leaders told us that communities across America had to eliminate such local programs as Buy Local, Buy American, Buy Green, etc. to allow foreign corporations to have the right to make the sale on any products purchased with our tax dollars? This nullification of our people's right to direct expenditures is just one of the horror stories in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

This is a super-sized NAFTA, the 1994 trade scam rammed through Congress by the entire corporate establishment. NAFTA promised the "glories of globalization": prosperity across our land. Unfortunately, corporations got the gold. We got the shaft -- thousands of factories closed, millions of middle-class jobs went south, and the economies of hundreds of towns and cities were shattered.

Twenty years later, the gang that gave us NAFTA is back with the TPP, a "trade deal" that mostly does not deal with trade. Of the 29 chapters in this document, only five cover traditional trade matters! The other chapters amount to a devilish "partnership" for corporate protectionism:


—Public services. TPP rules would limit how governments regulate such public services as utilities, transportation and education -- including restricting policies meant to ensure broad or universal access to those essential needs. One insidious rule says that member countries must open their service sectors to private competitors, which would allow the corporate provider to cherry-pick the profitable customers and sink the public service.


Full Article: http://www.zcommunications.org/a-corporate-coup-in-disguise-by-jim-hightower.html

[GoneFishin]

35. F**k explaining the fine print to corporatist shill posters. On it's face, the secrecy, the haste to

ram it through using FTA, and the fact that 600 corporate rep negotiators are (let's be real) writing the language makes it bad for real people.

Anyone who pretends that they don't understand that fact is trying to misdirect the discussion and waste your time.

[cali]

36. truly. I don't know why I keep engaging.

[kenny blankenship]

39. TPP is not yet reality. The real example is having the VP of a $60billion/yr corporation write a law

which makes indentured servants of every adult in the US below the age of 65. That's REAL corporate dictatorship, and it's here today, not tomorrow's wishlist or pipedream.

[cali]

44. I so don't get the "logic" behind "TPP is not yet reality"

That it hasn't been ratified doesn't make not real.

[kenny blankenship]

49. Things that don't exist yet aren't empirical "demonstrations" of anything

Your assertion wasn't that TPP was real and existed but that "Corporate control of our government" exists. TPP is just your cited proof for that.

But as it happens, TPP has encountered a wall of resistance in Congress and appears to be stalled - indefinitely. If it doesn't leap past this resistance it can not be the superlative demonstration of corporate control that you claim it is. Oh it's a dastardly plot no doubt. The secrecy under which it is being written and the sovereignty nullifying proposals are proof of horrible intentions in the Obama administration and in the corporate commissariat pushing for it; but as it stalls out and languishes, it is not proof of control but instead of the contrary: that total corporate control doesn't quite exist. If that control was truly airtight for the TPP, Congress wouldn't even wait to see it - instead they might say something like, "We have to pass it first to see what's in it."

TPP isn't the superlative demonstration you're looking for. You said "nothing demonstrates corporate control of our government" like the TPP - but it doesn't and can't until it has actually passed. The trade representative isn't the government. The Commerce Dept isn't the government. Even the Executive Branch isn't the whole government - Dick Cheney and the Unitary Executive theory notwithstanding. TPP isn't even fully written. If it passes in a form like the glimpses we've had so far, then, yes, it will be the demonstration of corporate dictatorship par excellance that you're looking for. You'll never need to ask for another! Nothing worse than that exists or has been proposed. It goes without saying that it's horrible and should be resisted with every fiber of our being and to the last drop of blood and yadda yadda yadda. But meanwhile you're missing the already existing example. You're overlooking a completed example that has demonstrated effective corporate control over all three branches - and not in a small matter either, but in a literal life and death matter for everyone. Corporate dictatorship is already substantially here, Cali. It's already moved from abstract proposal to real, enacted program on an epic scale.

Maybe it's not as easy to see since real phenomenon usually lack the clarity and bright outlines of abstract ideas.

A Vice President of a 60 billion dollar a year corporation posed as chief counsel to a Senate committee chaired by the Senator receiving the most donations from her industry, and they wrote a bill that made every adult in the country a peon bound to labor and to tithe to this industry. That is something that has actually happened. It is a fact of history, not a dystopian proposal. President Obama broke virtually promise he ever made (to the voters, anyway) on the subject of health care in signing it. It was OK'ed by a Supreme Court that might well have been expected to strike it down out of partisan animus - but for the sake of corporate government, showed clemency. If you're looking for the superlative example of corporate infiltration and control over our government, don't pass by reality! It has a lot to offer.

[fadedrose]

51. This was started before his term...

Maybe he hates it and is stuck with it, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish...

And maybe on the count of nine, he'll say, "Im not giving up labor and jobs in my country to help protect CD's and copyrights."

Maybe he knows as little about the TPP as he did about the ACA website. A bunch of emails almost daily might make him more aware.

Without corporation influence, he might do the right thing.

It's so difficult, cali, not knowing what they want, yet feeling that what they want is more wealth and power at anybody's expense. I'm sure the poor in the other countries aren't going to fare well either.

[WillyT]

52. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!