General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsfrom Martin O'Malley, re: TPP
Ellen,
Congressional leaders just reached a deal on a "trade promotion authority" bill that would give them the power to immediately vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade. This "fast track" authority would deny Congress the ability to amend yet another bad trade deal.
We must stop entering into bad trade deals that hurt middle class wages and ship middle class jobs overseas. And we certainly shouldnt be fast tracking failed deals.
Will you join me in calling on Congress to oppose "fast track" authority on the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
http://action.martinomalley.com/page/s/no-fast-track-on-tpp?&utm_medium=email&utm_source=omalley&utm_content=2+-+Will+you+join+me+in+calling+on+Congress+&utm_campaign=150416_tpp&source=150416_tpp
Chasing cheaper labor abroad will not help us build a stronger economy here at home.
Thank you,
Martin O'Malley
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,560 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)elleng
(130,825 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)It's fine to be for free trade. Everyone is for free trade. Bernie is for free trade. O'Malley is opposed to a specific "trade" deal- which as many experts have explained, is largely not about trade.
Now is you could demonstrate that he was for the TPP before he was against it, you might have the germ of an argument, but since Hillary has been for (or against) so many things before she was against (or for) them, you don't have a proverbially leg to stand on. Want and example: Last year she said marriage equality was a state issue. Yesterday she said it should be a constitutional right.
your post is embarrassingly, though predictably, uninformed, Ms. Rhapsody.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)O`Malley adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Write New Rules for the Global Economy
The rise of global markets has undermined the ability of national governments to control their own economies. The answer is neither global laissez faire nor protectionism but a Third Way: New international rules and institutions to ensure that globalization goes hand in hand with higher living standards, basic worker rights, and environmental protection. U.S. leadership is crucial in building a rules-based global trading system as well as international structures that enhance worker rights and the environment without killing trade. For example, instead of restricting trade, we should negotiate specific multilateral accords to deal with specific environmental threats.
cali
(114,904 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)as he so obviously does from that statement.
cali
(114,904 posts)You never seem to have a clue as to the issues you address.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)when I just supported my contention with an actual quote??? Riooooght!!! Speaking of lack of honesty....you might want to read the thread before you respond!
cali
(114,904 posts)about free trade in general is, at best, inane and at worst dishonest and reeking of an agenda.
I'd be embarrassed to post as you do here, but then I suspect we're very different- not only clearly in terms of knowledge and ability (sorry to toot my own horn here) but in sensibility.
And for this thread, Madame Rhap, I'm done with you.
Have a loverly day- as E. Doolittle said before her tutorials.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and was asked to back that up....and I did!!!
So....your problem with my honesty is??? Frankly, I don't think its my honesty that is in question now...
FSogol
(45,464 posts)....crickets....
still_one
(92,109 posts)should not be fast-tracked, and slipped through without giving time for Congress to analyze it, perhaps amend it to protect American workers, and understand its implications.
Lunabell
(6,068 posts)People can change you know. I used to be a rethuglican! That was 35 years ago, but still People can change.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and neither were my Grandparents...
Lunabell
(6,068 posts)I was a stupid 18 year old raised by born again "Christians" who pounded the right wing think tank into my head. I'm lucky I escaped.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Lunabell
(6,068 posts)Smugness is really annoying. Good for you. I am so very very happy for you that you are soooooo much better than I am. Good for you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am just a lifelong Democrat...that is all!
Lunabell
(6,068 posts)Good for you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Lunabell
(6,068 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he has opposed the TPP publicly and vehemently.
Everyone is for trade, just not this abomination and this makes him a likely great candidate for the WH. Where does Hillary stand on the TPP btw?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He didn't say Fair Trade...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:33 AM - Edit history (1)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I dislike how it mis-represents what "fast track" is/does.
Yes, it denies congress the ability to amend the trade deal; but, it does not give the power to an immediate vote, but more importantly, it ALLOWS congress to vote it up, or down.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)Your statement that the Fast Track bill "ALLOWS congress to vote it up, or down." seems to imply that Congress would not have the constitutional authority to vote on "trade agreements" if not for this bill (that is, your statement seems to imply that such an agreement could be done by executive authority without Congressional action).
If that is what is indeed what is contended, there are several problems with this:
(1.) From what we know about the negotiations, this involves issues of overriding numerous areas of law (including but not limited to labor law, environmental law, intellectual property law, safety regulation) regulated by federal, state, and local governmental entities, and removing the ability of federal, state, and municipal courts from enforcing their constitutionally passed laws, subjecting federal, state, and local governmental entities to being sued in an "Investor State Dispute Resolution" tribunal which is exempt from judicial appeal. Are you suggesting that presidential executive authority includes the authority to override federal and state labor, environmental, intellectual property, safety, and other laws by making a "trade" agreement based on executive authority?
(2.) If it is to be argued that Congress does not constitutionally possess the authority to be "allowed" to vote on a "trade agreement", then this bill would not change that, as (if that were true) Congress would not have the ability to grant itself the authority to ""allow Congress to vote it up, or down." (Since. if Congress had no such authority constitutionally, it would require a constitutional amendment to "allow Congress to vote it up or down."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's reading a lot into what I wrote.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)I suppose the capital letters "it ALLOWS Congress to vote it up, or down" seemed to suggest that you felt that TPP skeptics were getting something in return for surrendering the right to amend (as well as the right to filibuster or even to remove from the Fast Track process whatever "trade" agreement is proposed by whoever happens to be president in the next 6 years without a supermajority).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)But that was then I suppose.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What was it on?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was true of course.
It's interesting, airc, that was in his second to last year in office, 2007. Obama is in his second to last year in office.
I wonder if they have to make a deal with the corps to get Trade legislation through before the leave, but not in their first four years so they won't risk losing a second term.
I'm getting deja vu, except that now some Dems are defending the same thing they bitterly opposed back then.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)O'Malley made it pretty clear in his Harvard speech yesterday that he is not opposed to all trade deals, but that he is opposed to this particular trade deal -- TPP -- because it is a BAD trade deal. He did not elaborate about the power this deal would give corporations to trump governments and government regulations and a whole lot of other things. He did emphasize the effect it would have on US workers and the US economy.
I personally dislike most "free trade" agreements (including NAFTA), since they reduce the power of a nation to protect its workers' livelihoods, upon which the national interest ultimately depends. But the TPP is especially toxic and noxious and should have been smothered long before it came to a vote. It makes governments subordinate to corporations. To what or who do members of Congress swear loyalty?
TPP is, therefore, a good test of any politician's genuine democratic credentials. Democrats traditionally have not sided with corporations over workers, but I suppose that times have changed. Bernie Sanders is right to insist that democratic candidates make undeniably clear where they stand on this. O'Malley had made himself abundantly clear about TPP.
FSogol
(45,464 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Obama promises that this time, this trade agreement, will increase American exports.
Our existing trade agreements have cost us jobs, the loss of currency, of tax revenue. They are impoverishing us.
I'm all for lifting other nations with our trade. But let's do it one deal at a time. These mega-agreements hurt us. We need trade. We should not be more on the buying end than we are on the selling end.
I oppose the TPP.
And Obama should too.
The TPP, all the secrecy, all the rush, smells of corruption. What's the secret? What's the hurry?
No to the TPP.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)leaving no one standing.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The Korean Free Trade Deal, which in many ways is the prototype for the TPP,
and contains much of the same language.
Obama promised it would bring over 70,000 new jobs to the US,
and even out the balance of trade with Korea.
GUess WHAT?????
The US lost 60,000 jobs withing a few months to Korea, and the trade deficit with Korea BALLOONED.
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=3595
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)Skittles
(153,138 posts)secondvariety
(1,245 posts)example of why I like O'Malley.
Omaha Steve
(99,556 posts)With these 3 I doubt it will help.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)is looking very much like a progressive candidate for POTUS.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)still_one
(92,109 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Make me an O'Malley fan. If Bernie gets in he'd be my first choice but I could definitely support O'Malley.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)Speaking of Bernie, here he is speaking about TPP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017259642
99Forever
(14,524 posts)ANY Presidential candidate that won't come out against this, doesn't deserve to be a Democratic Party candidate.
Make it clear to these corporate shills, we will NOT stand for it.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)This is how buying elections pays off for multinational corporations. Invest a a paltry few million (or even a billion) for campaigns, and then reap trillions. We can't get 1% on our savings accounts, but they get infinite returns on their "investments."
Most of our representatives don't represent us. The problem isn't the size of government, but who the government serves.
TPP is just another nail in the crucifixion of the US middle class worker.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)that says if this deal doesn't create 1 million jobs in 2 years it is automatically repealed.
Koinos
(2,792 posts)When it comes to American jobs, I suppose you could call this the "trickle out theory." Creating more jobs abroad will boost our middle class. Jobs trickle out, and then Americans prosper! Wonderful corporate magic!
If we boost wages of foreign workers, they can buy things we don't make any more! Of course, many of our exports are weapons; so we need to start wars everywhere to boost our weapons production and sales!
The sinking of our nation will allow the lifting of financial boats everywhere else! That will level the global playing field!
Why should our workers make more than Malaysians? The great international plantation owners (job creators) know best!
Repeal minimum wage laws! Repeal child labor laws! The top 1% and the one hundred largest corporations are the only "true American persons" and citizens! Patriotism requires eliminating the useless old, the chronically ill, and the unproductive unemployed!
After all, this nation and its "serfs" are just another resource in the international corporate profit machine!
I think I am becoming ill. Too much sarcasm affects the brain.