You know, of course, that the TPP is already a done deal., But we should fight it anyway.

[Armstead]

The powers that be have already decided that this -- like all of the other rotten secret "free trade" deals that have been crammed down our throats -- is a done deal.

They'll put lipstick on the pig, perhaps add a few token vague provisions about labor or the environment, to placate the critics.

And then they'll put the f'in thing into effect. President Obama will sign it with wonderful words about how this will open up markets for the US...blah,blah de f' in dah.

See if you are opposed to this, you are naive. Part of that pesky base that the Demopublicans have to pay lip service to. You don't really understand business, or global economics or anything like that. You're irrelevant.

I am bracing myself for President Obama to start sealing the deal in his State of the Union.

BUT that doesn't mean we should just shut up and take it.

We should write, call and otherwise pester out representatives to let them know that we do not want this. Andlet them know that there may be a political price to pay if they are on the wrong side of this issue....And support those who are standing up against it.

And within our own circles try and get those who are apathetic -- or who have succumbed to the BushClintonObamaWallStreet sales pitch -- to wake up and add to a crtitical mass that may eventually take back the economy and policy for the people.

Somehow we've got to at least try to pull the balance back to a more humane form of economic policy.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. of course it's a done deal, but you are damn right that we should not shut up and take it.

[MADem]

2. Well, first we need to see what it says. And it won't be ratified before it is made

a matter of public record.

Then, we need to see which laws on our books will be overtaken or subsumed by this agreement. Congress -- both chambers -- will have to act to align our existing laws with the requirements of this treaty, should we choose to go with it. And if we don't go with it, they will have something to say, because there will be a conflict on the books.

I think people are apathetic because they don't understand the potential ramifications of the agreement. I don't know what's in the thing, myself--I'm not part of the group that's helping to write the doggone thing. There have been a few leaks of preliminary documents, but beyond that, I haven't seen anything that is definitive or conclusive.

I think we need to push for release of more of the potential verbiage.

It needs to be chopped up and broken down into simple arguments that everyday people can understand. Until that happens it will be hard to get people enthused about a "thing" that is reminiscent of toilet paper--even though it has the possibility of life-changing consequences.

[delrem]

4. The admin is talking "fast track" while the people are in the dark. That's the problem.

i don't recall any other trade deals done that way.

[Hoyt]

8. Super fast track, the thing has only been in negotiations since 2010.

And, it doesnt look like it will pass anytime soon.

[MADem]

12. What is the definition of a fast track? Haven't we been batting this thing around for three years,

at least? Or are they saying once they get it all written/agreed upon that they want to enact it quickly?

It sounds to me like 151 Democrats in the House want to discuss the matter. I suspect they'll get their way.

[Elwood P Dowd]

14. My God you need some help with this.

If you don't understand fast track then maybe you should bow out of this discussion.

Basically, fast track means Congress must give an up or down vote with zero changes, amendments, or filibuster. NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, and all the other destructive trade agreements were rammed through Congress that way. Fast track has been around since 1974.

[MADem]

16. But the point I am making is that there's pushback from the House on this score, for starters.

And, if this thing is "rammed through" Congress still has work to do--because, the way I am understanding it, new laws will have to be written and passed to accommodate the changes, and old laws will need to be repealed.

You can't "fast track" without AGREEMENT. People who are pissed off vote "down" and tell 'em to come back with something better.

My question is this--what will they be in agreement about? What is in each of those 29 chapters?

No one can tell me the answer to this question. Why? Is it because it's all a big secret, or because the participating nations haven't come to an accord yet?

[ReRe]

18. When there is "fast track"...

... there is NO discussion. NO hearings. They either vote yea or nay. It's not like anything else that Congress d We the People are not allowed to know what is in the agreement. Only our elected representatives and senators know what is in it. And they are not allowed to tell what is in it. Normally, when a regular Bill goes through Congress, the people are allowed to read the bill online. But NOT this TPP Trade Agreement.

It's just the way it is. When it comes to the floor to be voted on, there will be no discussion, only a vote.

And by the time it comes to the floor, all discussions by other countries involved in the agreement and our business leaders who have been negotiating with the other countries for the past years, will be done with it.

It's crazy. It's not akin to democracy. It's wrong. It's like something you would read in The Onion. Even though it's going to change many things about our lives, we aren't allowed to know. It's diabolical social engineering for profit, MADem.

Yes, it's because it's all a big secret.

And it has nothing to do with "Freedom and Liberty," which TPTB (The Powers That Be) like to tout ad nausium.

[MADem]

24. We have to be able to read it, though, first. They can't vote on it before it is published.

And then, if it sucks, we write to/call our Senators--because they ratify--and tell them to vote NO.

The thing is, no one knows what's in this thing yet. We have a few draft versions--not finalized--of this chapter or that, but we really don't have a sense of what this whole thing encompasses.

I would like to have that understanding. I know that a lot of people are protesting, and they may well have a point, but I am not able to find anyone who knows anything about what's in this thing beyond the couple of drafts that were leaked.

[ReRe]

25. You might as well get aboard the protest wagon...

... because you're not going to be allowed to see this thing before it's voted on, and probably not afterward either. I don't know about you, but if I'm signing a contract, I want to read what's in it. If I can't read the contract first, it doesn't get my signature.

Of course you want to know what's in it. We all do. Have you written to your Congressman and Senators? Write the letters in your own hand writing and address the envelopes in your own handwriting. Slap a couple stamps on them and get them in the mail Monday AM. That is the best way I know of to get an actual answer to your question, straight from the horse's mouth.

[MADem]

27. It will have to be published and then 'read' (or have had the "waive reading" thing done)

before they vote--so it will be up on THOMAS before they vote on it.

I can email my Senators and they will write back. Letters almost never get delivered, not for months. No one uses them anymore unless you know a staffer and their home address, and the letter is expected.

The only reason to write to a congressman or woman is to get them engaged in the discussion--they don't vote on this, if we're talking strictly a treaty and not a package to change laws to include appropriations (but nothing I have heard suggests the latter).

This is treaty stuff, so Senate only, 2/3 majority.

[solarhydrocan]

28. The TPP like NAFTA is NOT a TREATY

the word AGREEMENT is there for a reason.

Some of us learned about this when we opposed NAFTA, the North American Free Trade AGREEMENT.

The TPP is officially: Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement

Do you know why these are called "agreements" and NOT Treaties? If not, here is an opportunity for further understanding.

[MADem]

30. So, if it's not a treaty, who "not ratifies" it, then?

Do both chambers vote?

[MH1]

37. Will it necessarily be up on Thomas before being voted on?

In general, bill text usually is, but I've seen cases where it isn't.

But ...the only case I can think of at the moment is "an amendment in the nature of a substitute". The amendment completely rewrites the bill, however the amendment text is not available online, and the vote is held anyway. That sucks because, as is being suggested by other posters in this thread, you don't even know what's in the bill to email your congress critter about, and then they've already voted. It's hard to believe that this happens but it does, due to the way Congress is structured and how they push things to the last minute and then "leaders" do a back-room deal and tell their caucus members they'd better vote "yes" on it.

But given this is a treaty and if it is following fast-track, then I think there can't be any amendments, so you should be right that the text will be up on Thomas before it is voted on. I've been burned too many times to have much faith in that though.

[solarhydrocan]

38. It's an agreement not a treaty. You can see this by looking at the title of the agreement.

Difference Between Treaty and Executive Agreement

Treaty vs Executive Agreement

Treaties and executive agreements are tools under domestic laws. These procedures allow the U.S. to emerge as a party in an international agreement.

Treaty
Treaties are international agreements which are described under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. A treaty is forced in relation to the U.S. as an international agreement only after a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate has been advised and consented.
These agreements are in relation to peace or trade-related foreign policies. The treaties are international agreements and are equally binding under domestic laws. A treaty is a formal agreement made by the President of the U.S. It is carried over to the successive officeholders.
According to current statistics, the U.S. is party to about 900 treaties. This number is much less than the number of executive agreements. One reason for this difference may be the mandatory two-thirds vote required which is applicable for a treaty. Another probable reason is the contacts and relations of the U.S. with foreign countries....snip

...Congressional agreement

This is the most common type of executive agreement. The Congressional agreement requires approval by the Senate and the House of Representatives. This procedure is taken when a two-thirds vote in the Senate seems unlikely.

Sole agreement

A sole agreement does not involve the Senate and is signed by the President.
At present, the U.S. is party to at least 5,000 executive agreements. They account for about 90% of all the international agreements signed by the U.S.


Summary:

1.A treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate while an executive agreement does not.
2.A treaty is a formal agreement while an executive agreement is not as formal as a treaty.
3.A treaty is carried on to the successive Presidents while an executive agreement has to be renegotiated every time.
4.An executive agreement is of two types while a treaty is not.
5.A President may invoke an executive agreement but not a treaty.
6.There are many more executive agreements as compared to treaties.

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-treaty-and-executive-agreement/

This was made common knowledge when Al Gore and Clinton were ramming NAFTA down the throats of the commoners and congress.

[MADem]

61. OK, so the full Congress votes on this thing--and it expires with every President?

Thanks for that information, BTW--it's very helpful. It wasn't really common knowledge, though--I don't think it is to this day. Most people call NAFTA a "treaty" and they blame Clinton-Gore, even though, per your cite, it has to be "renegotiated every time" and thus would have had to have been renegotiated for Bush and Obama.

The executive agreements are international agreements and are binding under the domestic laws very similar to treaties. An executive agreement is also an international agreement, but it is not as formal as a treaty. They are not binding on the successive presidents. An executive agreement needs renegotiation by the successive presidents.

So, we're not "Doooooooooomed, DOOOOOOOOOMED, I tell ya!!!" I mean, really--who would re-approve a shitty non-treaty agreement that screwed us blue? And why would we, as a nation, tolerate that?


Also, your link talks about three types of "agreements"--sole agreements, executive agreements, and congressional agreements.

What kind of agreement IS this? Executive, or Congressional?

I'm afraid I'm left MORE confused, not less--but that's OK. This is most certainly elucidating--I like DU when I get a chance to go to school!

[Hoyt]

47. They won't give Obama fast track authority. In unlikely event they did, and the agreement included

the horrible stuff folks expect, it won't get passed.

[Chan790]

33. If Congresspeople can be believed...

and I have no reason to believe they can, but if they can be believed...fast track is DOA in both chambers of Congress. Congresspeople, even ones that would probably support TPP, want to see and read it and have the opportunity to possibly amend it, before they vote on it. That's more-heavily Democrats, but it is bipartisan.

I've written to a lot of Congress people to voice opposition and I have a lot of letters, including from members of the Democratic House leadership, saying they will not support fast-track.

[Hoyt]

48. Exactly.

[Armstead]

39. Most of them have been done that way

They became more blatantly secretive the more noise the public started to make about them

[delrem]

54. FTA and NAFTA were debated in Canada. Elections fought over them. Not secret.

TPP is secret.

That's an important qualitative difference.

[Armstead]

55. I remember the Canadian debate..and the protests in the US

But NAFTA itself was shrouded with a lot of smoke that prevented any real discussion in the US. The critics were just dismissed as malcontents.

I agree that TPP is more low key and secretive. But that has more to do with the fact that we have become conditioned to accept these things.

What's really needed is a way to get the public to become more aware of the underlying purposes and impact of these things, and not either be negotiated in secret or obscured by the complex legalisms and bureaucratic gobbledegook used to cover over their real implications.

[JDPriestly]

6. NAFTA has been an environmental disaster, and it doesn't pretend to do what the leaks suggest

that the TPP does. The international NAFTA court is really bad. I imagine that the TPP court will be even worse.

[MADem]

9. So, what is your solution? We no longer enter into any world-wide partnerships?

We act unilaterally on all issues?

What's the answer?

I'm quite serious in asking this question.

[Elwood P Dowd]

10. So you want more world-wide partnerships

that ship millions of jobs out of the country, drive down wages to poverty levels, allow giant corporations to pollute with total impunity, destroy the internet as we know it, and wipe out government regulations on the big business and the financial crooks?

I would think after NAFTA, GATT, WTO, MFN, CAFTA, and all the other destructive so called "world-wide partnerships" masquerading as "free trade" you would have finally learned your lesson. Guess you didn't.

[MADem]

11. Please explain to me--and everyone else here who doesn't see what you seem to be suggesting is

"obvious" -- how this agreement, which to me seems very focused on not being able to swipe movies and heightens copyright protections for artists and creators, will "ship millions of jobs out of the country."

The Marshall Plan was, in effect, a world wide partnership following WW2. Not all partnerships are evil.

So, I'm listening. Tell my why THIS agreement is so terrible. And tone down the "lecturing"--it makes you come off poorly.

I don't see a lot of job shipping in anything I've read thus far about this thing. Yet everyone who objects to it keeps parroting that term--so what am I missing?

[solarhydrocan]

13. The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'

The TPP would strip our constitutional rights, while offering no gains for the majority of Americans. It's a win for corporations

Mark Weisbrot theguardian.com, Tuesday 19 November 2013

The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement among 12 governments, touted as one of the largest "free trade" agreements in US history, is running into difficulties as the public learns more about it. Last week 151 Democrats and 23 Republicans (pdf) in the House of Representatives signed letters to the US chief negotiators expressing opposition to a "fast track" procedure for voting on the proposed agreement. This procedure would limit the congressional role and debate over an agreement already negotiated and signed by the executive branch, which the Congress would have to vote up or down without amendments.

Most Americans couldn't tell you what "fast track" means, but if they knew what it entails they would certainly be against it. As one of the country's leading trade law experts and probably the foremost authority on Fast Track, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, put it:

[Fast track] authorized executive-branch officials to set US policy on non-tariff, and indeed not-trade, issues in the context of 'trade' negotiations.

This means that fast track, which first began under Nixon in 1974, was not only a usurpation of the US Congress' constitutional authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations".

It also gave the executive branch – which is generally much less accountable to public pressure than the Congress – a means of negating and pre-empting important legislation by our elected representatives. Laws to protect the environment, food safety, consumers (from monopoly pricing), and other public interest concerns can now be traded away in "trade" negotiations. And US law must be made to conform to the treaty...MORE
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. He co-wrote Oliver Stone's documentary South of the Border.

[MADem]

15. That article, though it is a few months old, has more answers in it than I've been able to

get out of anyone else in this thread, so I thank you for the link.

So now we learn there are 29 chapters, and we've seen, what--one or two of them? We've also learned that 24 of those chapters have nothing to do with trade.

Beyond that, what do we know? Really? And how "done" is this deal? Really?

I will say that, despite the rudeness and snark one finds in the comments section of that particular paper, the discussion following the article had some interesting entries.

[ReRe]

19. What is in those other 24 chapters of the TPP agreement?

Was that in the above referenced link? Thanks.

[MADem]

22. Dunno....no one else does either, I'm starting to think.

We have broad categories and very few specifics. Yes, it was in the article.

Only five of the 29 deal with trade. The remaining 24 are ... 'other stuff' I guess.

[ReRe]

26. MADem...

... has anyone ever told you you was hard-headed? Look it... if there are 29 chapters in this thing, I want to read and comprehend all 29 chapters. To my knowledge, there was only 2 chapters leaked. If and until all chapters are released to the public, and the Congress is allowed to discuss them on the floor of the Congress, I say "Hell No!" to TPP.

[MADem]

29. Congress is "allowed" to talk about pretty much anything they'd like.

In the House, particularly, they open the morning with a number of opportunities to speak on any subject at all.

I guess no one remembers that nutjob rep from Youngstown OH, Jim Trafficant, a nominal Democrat, now Tea Party darling, who went to jail. He used to give hilarious One Minute Speeches, frequently interjected with the phrase "Mister Speaker. Beam. Me. UP!" Check Youtube--he spoke on a WIDE variety of topics!

I would like to know how close they are to even "finishing" this grand treaty. I am starting to wonder if they're close at all. If only two chapters are leaked, where are the other 27? I just don't get why they'd get one or two, and not a bit more? Or are there only a few bones of contention in the thing, and they cherry picked?

I definitely think this conversation needs to take place. I'd like to see the emphasis/focus be on learning what the verbiage is. Perhaps the tack to take with Congress is to simply demand that we all get a look at this thing? Not "It sucks! Stop it!" but "We want to read/discuss this thing! Now!" Ask reps to mention it at morning speeches. Right now, there's no substantive discussion in the media about this--if it starts getting mention on the floor of the House or Senate, maybe that would push the conversation.

[Armstead]

40. They have talked about these agreements

Last edited Sun Jan 26, 2014, 11:46 AM - Edit history (2)

Problem is unless you're watching CSpan you're not likely to hear them. And all they can do it talk as long as the party establishment is determined to ram this through.

[MADem]

73. Apparently--and ain't it something what you find once ya start digging--Congress can SEE the drafts,

too. So anyone from Congress who says they haven't seen them hasn't tried to see them.

However, they're apparently a pain in the ass to get to--I suppose because of all this leakin' going on!!!

Found this little nugget in an article about my Senator's disapproval of the Trade Honcho (he got in, she voted against him, though):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/elizabeth-warren-free-trade-letter_n_3431118.html

Warren's letter does not take issue with specific terms of the negotiations, but rather the secrecy surrounding the process. Members of Congress have been allowed to see TPP negotiation texts. Some have said they were insulted by the complex administrative procedures the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, or USTR, imposed to actually access the texts -- barriers not imposed on unelected corporate advisers.

I guess the USTR isn't worried about the leaks coming from the corporate end...?

[nenagh]

20. My understanding is that fast tracking means allowing an up or down vote only on the TPP, no changes

I read that other countries that are signed on to the TPP are parliamentary democracies and these countries do not want to pass the TPP in their countries..then find that it fails to be passed in the USA. The TPP is unpopular here, but we have a Conservative government in Canada. They can pass the whole agreement as written. In the USA, there can be no discussion or breakdown of the TPP into parts..other countries don't vote that way... Each country has to vote on exactly the same agreement.

Essentially, a fast track authority creates more of a parliamentary system in the USA.. the vote is all or nothing at all... No changes allowed... That is what you are giving up by agreeing to Fast Tracking, the ability to break down the TPP into relative parts and discuss and change the agreement as it is written.

Again, as I understand it.. some of the laws from the TPP would then be subject to something like a tribunal which would have corporate lawyers making decisions about TPP regulations .. Which would supersede the actual laws in your own country.

Canada, eg, would suddenly have it's generic drug laws overturned re time..and Big Pharma would hold onto their patents for longer. Drug prices will rise.. and that in a socialized system of medicine as we have here in Canada, will increase drug prices which will be paid for by higher taxation here in Canada..or reducing benefits..

MADem, my area of expertise is far from the political arena. I think the above is written more from the perspective of Canadian newspapers trying to have Canadian readers understand fast tracking..and why it is necessary to 'fast track' the vote in the USA.

Please read about the Govt of Canada being sued for 250 million dollars by a company called Lone Pine..because the Govt of Quebec voted to not allow fracking in an area or areas near to the St Lawrence River, a major waterway, which revoked a Lone Pine licence agreement..so the Govt of Canada is now being sued for the company's loss of profits under a NAFTA agreement...

[MADem]

23. I'm in the same boat--just trying to get a few details, here.

NAFTA was passed by doing the up or down thing, but we're not so naive anymore.

That was a long time ago.

The thing is, though, if they want this thing to pass, the way to do it is to engage in discussion of the specifics as they're being negotiated, so that lawmakers have the ability to understand what laws will have to be changed, and which will have to be repealed entirely.

I don't think--unless it is a very benign agreement--that the up or down demand will work. I also don't know what all of those chapters deal with. I've heard there's one on medical procedures, one on drugs (big pharma) and one on internet/copyright stuff....but that leaves 26 others we need to talk about.

[Armstead]

44. You're right but you're wrong

You're right that anything like this should be taken apart and considered in the open political process in very specific terms.

You're wrong that were "naive" about NAFTA and that somehow the forces of reason will surface to stop this.

The people who put NAFTA together (including the "good guys" like Clinton) weren't naive. They knew what they were doing, and they didn't care...There was plenty of opposition back then, but they just ignored it and did what they were gonna do.

They are doing the same thing now. Obama isn't naive. He's listening to the forces that want this thing for their own selfish interests. the rest us us be damned.

[MADem]

57. Wait, wait, wait--I wasn't talking about the crafters of NAFTA, I was talking about the

ELECTORATE....the "We, The People" piece. We The People were naive. We didn't ask questions.

We're not that, now.

[Armstead]

59. Too many are naive and apathetic

In circles where people are paying attention to issues like this, yes people are aware of it.

But not among the general population. To far too many people it either isn't on their radar or just seems like bureaucratic background noise that won't really affect daily life. That, unfortunately is naive.

Things like then TPP are turning points that determine how life will proceed afterwards. I wish that were more widely recognized.

[MADem]

70. Well, free trade is a complex matter.

On the one hand, everyone says they want to help the poor disadvantaged people in far off Mexico or Canada (heh), but they don't want to give up a chunk of their own protectionist advantage to open a market in return--that's the NAFTA gripe, pretty much. So, too, with this TPP, apparently--though as I said elsewhere, there are a lot of "Not Poor" players (like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Brunei, New Zealand, etc.) in the mix. Not only are these countries "not poor" -- many of them -- they could be said, in some regards, to have a "better" standard of living than USA--all the ones I mentioned, save Brunei, which doesn't have a minimum wage, pay MORE to their "wage slave" workers than we do. So the question needs to be asked: What's in it for THEM? Why are they so willing to play?

As I said, some of my reading is telling me (and I don't know enough about this subject, I am still digging around and reading up) that the goal of this TPP is more about answering CHINA's influence in the Pacific--the old Safety in Numbers game.

I don't pretend to have the answers--I'd just like people to talk about the actual issues, the actual PURPOSE and EFFECT of this thing (if we know--and clearly, we don't) rather than just parrot the same old protectionist sound bites. The whole idea behind "free" or "freer" trade is that we give a little, we get a little. If we aren't "getting" as good as we're "giving" then there needs to be a discussion about that. Of course, when I start looking around, I can find arguments on both sides--and this issue is NOT one that is divided along party lines. Where one stands depends on where one sits. If you're a grocer, for example, it's great to get produce from South America in the off season to get people into your store, and it's great for that consumer who wants to make that spring fruit medley in February. However, if you're in an industry that saw your job making a non-technical item, like, say, a washing machine or a fridge,slink off to Mexico, you're gonna be resentful and hate the idea of a) losing your livelihood; b) having to find a new line of work in an iffy economy.

It is a decidedly liberal trait to want people who live in poverty to be lifted out of it. That said, it becomes more of a challenge to hold true to those beliefs when the people being lifted out of poverty are doing it by taking some of those American jobs, and segments of our own economy are being forced to retool and reinvent themselves.

And we know that most jobs, once they go, don't come back, at least not in the same way. If the foreign competitor can't keep the quality levels up, or if the American producer can find a way to include a "boutique" or other "value added" aspect to the product, OR if it turns out it's no cheaper to have a far-flung factory with workers who don't give a shit, the occasional job might come home, but those are generally the exception rather than the rule.

The other thing I've noticed, is that the more "consumer-ized" these "poor" countries become, the more the workers demand higher wages. And the more those wages go up, the more demands manufacturers make with regard to quality. It's one thing to get five cheap-ass plastic bowls Made In China for a buck at the Dollah Store, it's another thing to spend twenty bucks for the Martha Stewart bowls Made in China that crack in the dishwasher (that's an invented example, just for illustrative purposes, mind you)--people won't put up with that shit, and maybe then Martha will find a bowl maker who can do a better job in Mexico...or Canada...or the USA.

So yeah, it is complex. But as for this particular agreement, we won't know HOW complex until we get a peek at it.

[bvar22]

64. "We The People were naive."

Speak for Yourself.
Not everybody was naive.
Some were paying attention.... even WAY back then.

Clinton pounds unions' tactics against NAFTA President assails 'naked pressure' put on lawmakers
November 08, 1993|By Susan Baer | Susan Baer,Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the administration's face-off with Ross Perot in its last-ditch effort to rescue the North American Free Trade Agreement, President Clinton took on another NAFTA opponent yesterday, attacking labor unions for using "roughshod, muscle-bound tactics" to try to defeat the trade pact.

In an hour-long, Oval Office interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday morning, Mr. Clinton conceded he is about 30 votes short of the majority needed to pass the trade legislation in the House, which will cast its decision Nov. 17.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-11-08/news/1993312002_1_nafta-ross-perot-free-trade

Ross was right!

&feature=player_embedded
...but Bill was smooth.
He was so smooth that when he told the American Working Class that competing with Slave Labor Countries for their jobs would be a GOOD thing,
most believed him.
Some STILL believe him today.

[MADem]

65. Sorry, but "We The People" were, apparently, naive.

Otherwise, NAFTA would have been kicked to the curb by the House and Senate, and it wasn't.

If "We The People" were just you, you might have a point. But it's the whole lot of us--the good, the bad, the smart, the dumb, the rich, the poor, the dreamers and the pragmatists, the altruists and the Greedy Geese...and "We The People" did not turn our backs on it.

So there's that.

The one thing I never really "got" about NAFTA is that, unlike European economic accords, it's not easier to travel to Canada or Mexico--it's harder. You have to pay for a passport or a passport card to get over the borders. I never needed any "papers please" to go from Italy to Switzerland or Germany or France in the post EU era.

[Armstead]

42. MaDEM, Here is the problem in a nutshell

The basic premise of these so-called "free trade" agreements is phony and destructive.

TPP, NAFTA and these of the "free trade agreements" do not need to exist.

They are part of an attempt (successful so far) to impose a global architecture of control over the economy, civil society and laws. They are designed to hijack the sovereignty of nations -- and to subjugate social public values -- under the thumb of Big Capital and the forces of Darwinian Capitalism.

They are, in short a power grab by those with money and power to PREVENT all other social, environmental and political forces from interfering with the flow of capital and the whims of the oligarchs.

They impose a One Size Fits All set of complicated trade "regulations" on the whole world, regardless of the circumstances and needs of individual nations and their people.

AN ALTERNATIVE?

Trade should be regulated and controlled by a combination of national policies voted on as any other laws, and straightforward agreements between individual nations. Without getting too complicated, they should focus ONLY on the mechanics of trade. They y should be flexible to accommodate different situations with specific goods.

It is not realistic to impose the same standards on a struggling Third World nation as on a wealthy developed nation. And it is not helpful to struggling nations to open the gates to modern forms of Corporate Colonialism, just as it is not helpful to developed nations to open the gates for their economies and jobs to be hollowed out by Global Capital.

--0n things like preventing the "dumping" of goods, negotiating tariffs, and yes, perhaps quotas to protect domestic economics and reflect the social values of individual nations.

If, for example, copyright is an issue, the government of the US should use its own legal system and laws -- to protect the owners of copyrights WITHIN our own nation. If that involves foreign pirates, then use our national legal and political system to deal with it.

Instead, these "free trade" agreements are putting in place international regulations to control all intellectual property issues throughout the world. And they are not being done in the spirit of democratic participation in the drafting of that.

I realize what I just wrote is simplistic. BUT this issue really is about some fairly specific principles. Namely should our laws and policies be the product of a democratic political process (as imperfect as that may be) or complicated agreements negotiated in secret by Corporate Oligarchs and the bureaucrats and politicians they have purchased.

[MADem]

60. Well, generally speaking, I agree with what you are saying, simplistic or not.

That said, is this TPP really about "Third World Countries" or something else? One analysis I read posited that it was, in actual fact, a sharp elbow to China's eye.

This is what I'm trying to tease out--but the more I start looking (and I've been lazy, I've glossed over this topic in my reading) the less, not more, I know.

One thing I do know is that NOBODY knows what's in this damn thing. Now, I can understand why they wait until it is a finished product--too many cooks spoil the broth, and all that--but the whole "You got ninety days to read this thing and say Yes To the Dress" is where there's a problem, I think.

Something between "Three Months" on the one hand, and "Let's Dither Forever, As We Sometimes Do" is probably what's needed--a "Medium Track" if you will--say, six months of discussion, then let's decide.

The countries we are negotiating with to craft this agreement are not a bunch of hellholes, many of them have a lotta cash (Brunei) or are otherwise highly developed (Australia is hardly a 3rd World sewer--in many ways they have a better QOL than we do). This isn't about giving the "poor losers" a leg up, exclusively, though there may be some of that happening--hard to know, though, since no one has coughed up the five "trade" chapters that we'd need to see out of the 29 in this thing.

I have to chuckle a bit at how so many people (and I am not directing this at you) find the "EU" just grand (and why ARE those troublesome Brits so reluctant to fully participate, eh what?), but they object to us participating in any kind of economic or trade accommodation that would level the playing field across nations. It's kind of disingenuous to say that we want to lift up the less advantaged, and then position ourselves as protectionists. I don't know what the solution is, though, to Theoretical Altruism fighting with Practical Protectionism. If we're to look at this as a zero sum game, if we want that poor person in that mud hut to work an eight hour day with a two week vacation at a decent wage, something's gotta give. I guess we want the 'giving' to happen in nations other than ours, given the current economic/jobs climate.

[Armstead]

67. These take the wrong approach

Nothing should be as big and confusing and cunbersome as these trade deals.

Trade is fairly straightforward. How much of a countrys goods does another nation want to take in, and vice versa....What are reasonable terms to allow for reasonable commerce while preventing dumping and other unfair practices.

We should deal with these specific issues on their individual terms through normal processes and laws. It should not be lumped together with assortments of other issues in indecipherable packages negotiated in secret.

Also, again, what trade policies towrds one country are appropriate may be totally wrong for another.

In essence, we should push for trade policies that are focused on trade, and on a rational and managable basis.

[MADem]

71. But not if we want to answer China. And the more I think on it, that's what I think the goal is,

here--to gather together a group that can counterbalance the sheer mass of China.

If you deal with nations individually, you have no clout against a behemoth.

If a group of nations gets together and works as a team, they have clout.

It's just what the EU did--as individual nations, they often got the short end. As a group, their negotiating position is much stronger.

Trade, unfortunately, is not always "just about trade." If it were, there would be Cuban cigars (legally) in the White House humidor.

[villager]

3. "Demopublicans" indeed. Alas.

Would be nice to at least have an actual second party, in this country.

[Phlem]

5. Demopublicans

Perfect description, the awful truth.

As one member puts it: I Love It when I wake up in the morning and Barack Obama is President!

Wooo Fuckin Hooo

-p

[jazzimov]

7. NO, it is NOT a "done deal".

It is still being negotiated. It is still being written.

[tblue]

17. Because those 85 people who own the same

amount of wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion aren't finished yet. They want to have more than the bottom 6.5 billion. It's never enough. Never ever enough. They will not be denied.

And our dear POTUS and our Dems in Congress either agree with them or believe they are powerless to do anything about it.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. 151 House Dems Telling President They Will Not Support Outdated Fast Track

"Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and George Miller (D-CA) announced today more than 150 Democrats in the House of Representatives oppose the use of outdated “Fast Track” procedures that usurp Congress’s authority over trade matters. The lawmakers’ opposition stands for both the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and any future trade agreements.

“For some time, members of Congress have urged your administration to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the numerous issues being negotiated,” they wrote. “Many have raised concerns relating to reports about the agreement’s proposed content…Twentieth Century “Fast Track” is simply not appropriate for 21st Century agreements and must be replaced. The United States cannot afford another trade agreement that replicates the mistakes of the past. We can and must do better.”
http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1455:delauro-miller-lead-151-house-dems-telling-president-they-will-not-support-outdated-fast-track-for-trans-pacific-partnership&Itemid=21

[snot]

21. K&R'd.

[Demo_Chris]

31. One of several reasons I simply no longer get excited about electing Democrats. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

34. There is concerted opposition to this on the Democratic side, Republicans and Blue Dogs

favor it.
Two House Democrats, Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and George Miller of California, sent a letter to Obama last week announcing they had already lined up 151 House Democrats in opposition to what they called "fast-track procedures that usurp Congress' authority over trade matters."

"The United States cannot afford another trade agreement that replicates the mistakes of the past," they wrote on behalf of all the Democratic signers. "We can and must do better."

Organized labor is also digging in its heels. "The AFL-CIO opposes this legislation in the strongest of terms and will actively work to block its passage," said the labor organization's president, Richard Trumka. "It is past time for the United States to get off the corporate hamster wheel on trade."
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/president_obamas_push_to_fast.html

[Demo_Chris]

35. Yes, but as always the "opposition" is safe...

The House, which we do not control, is opposed. The Senate is ramming through fast track. If the majorities were switched the same people expressing their concern would be switching their votes. It's always that way.

I know who my party represents and it isn't me. I'm tired of HUNTING for reasons to support them or to care. In fact, I am done looking and done making excuses. Fuck 'em. I don't need the frustration.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. 12 Democratic Senators send Reid a letter opposing the Fast Track.....

The House is full of Republicans who favor this bill, the opposition in the House is Democratic. Senators expressing opposition: Senators Al Franken, Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren, Christopher Murphy, Bernie Sanders, Tom Harkin, Carl Levin, Jeff Merkely, Jack Reed, Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, and Sheldon Whitehouse –
http://www.scribd.com/doc/200151609/TPA-Ltr-to-Leader-Reid-1-15-2014

[MADem]

72. Now THIS adds to the discussion....!!!! Thank you for digging this up.

They want more Congressional involvement, and they want to make sure bullshit like unfair labor practices and currency (helloooo CHINA) manipulation are part and parcel of any trade agreement.

Very elucidative, this. I have to say I agree with their particular concerns as expressed in this letter--if these agreements are to work, the playing field must be levelled (notwithstanding some variances due to local economies).

[Enthusiast]

36. We can stop it. We must stop it.

We must stop this race to the bottom.

[RB TexLa]

41. LOL

[Hoyt]

50. LOL.

[cali]

46. not yet, it's not. close to a done deal, yeah. a truly done deal. no. and I daresay

I've followed this closer than just about anyone on du

[Armstead]

49. Depends on how one defines a done deal

I hope you are correct and I will do what i can to stop this abomination.

[Marr]

51. Actually, I think the Tea Party loons might help us here in the House.

Sometimes, having an opponent who stomps their feet and refuses to pass anything is a godsend. Like when your party attempts to sell you out, for instance.

This is an example of how just voting for the "D" doesn't work. If we replaced every Republican in congress with a Third Way or Blue Dog hack, we'd already have Chained CPI and the TPP would be absolutely unstoppable.

[G_j]

52. is there a trade deal that hasn't been a done deal?

though it would be nice to break the corporate winning streak..

[socialist_n_TN]

53. Oh, yeah it needs to be opposed. And just like the HRC...

it's being portrayed as inevitable and good for the USA. But there was a lot of pressure for military strikes on Syria too and that got shot down. Maybe this can be shut down too.

[Armstead]

56. Would be a refreshing change it it were to be dropped

[restorefreedom]

66. just the suggestion that it is a "done deal"

will discourage many from even trying to fight it. I think we need to try and refrain from giving up prematurely.

I agree - whatever can be done until it is signed sealed and delivered should be done.

This is bad for American jobs, the middle class, and anyone who wants to get into the middle class. The corporate masters, of course, are salivating over how much more money they can make on the backs of hideously underpaid Vietnamese.

[socialist_n_TN]

74. Yep and that's the point .......

What did the Borg say in The Next Generation? Resistance is futile.

[jsr]

58. No, it is not inevitable

[great white snark]

62. This author doesn't want positive..where's the doom & gloom?

You know, both parties are the same and we're hosed and the end is near blah blah Nader is God blah.

[Jakes Progress]

63. Sure. Everything is hunky dory.

Don't be negative. Just grin and sing. It's all good. Nothing to see here.

Why be proactive? Then it's just mean to be reactive.

Dr. Pangloss would love you.

[Armstead]

68. Oh you had to bring Nader into it

Instead of great snarkiness, feel free to tell me where i'm wrong.

[Cleita]

69. Don't know it's a done deal yet, but when it is, then what?

Do we quit our jobs, sell our possessions and go up into the mountains to wait for the end of the world?

What can we do? It seems pushing our politicians to do the right thing hasn't worked. It seems we need to change tactics and push those corporations that are buying our politicians to do the right thing instead, but how?

[blackspade]

75. I hope not.

The TPP is a load of corporate empowerment at the expense of the average citizen of the world.
Based on the leaked documents, this proposed trade agreement is a giant siphon plugged into the 99%'s wallet not only here but abroad as well.
And for some sprinkles of delight, continuing environmental destruction, elimination of food and product safety regulations, and further degradation of our manufacturing and infrastructure.

A shit sandwich any way you slice it.

[Distant Quasar]

76. No, TPP is not a done deal - we can stop it

151 House Democrats are already on the record opposing fast track legislation. So are 23 Republicans. There are doubtless more in both parties quietly wishing it would go away. Boehner has said he won't even bring fast track to the floor without at least 50 Democratic votes. This may be difficult, since it couldn't even get a single Democratic sponsor in the House.

In the Senate, Democratic support is tepid at best. I believe 17 senators have come out against it. The others are lying low, including Reid. He has to know that if this monstrosity passes, the backlash could torpedo Democrats' chances of keeping the Senate.

And this is just for fast track. Even if the agreement is finalized, once its provisions become known to the public, I think it will become truly toxic for Democrats and possibly many Republicans as well. We can kill this thing. But I agree we have to act.