General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama to US Workers: "Thanks for supporting me. Here's a bag of shit for you. Enjoy."
One of the most toxic anti-worker, anti-family, anti-student, pro-corporate laws in US history is being rushed through Congress.
Republicans love it. Wall Street loves it. The rich love it.
Known as TPP, it sends millions of additional jobs to Asia.
The bill, written and negotiated in secret by a consortium of corporations, is being framed as a humanitarian effort to "lift more deserving nations out of poverty".
It's nothing more than Obama's final stab in the back of US workers.
After working our asses off for the last 30 years, our productivity has been pegged to the maximum.
Our wages haven't budged. Our benefits have been slashed. Education and health care costs have soared.
Kids and teachers are being tortured as part of a cruel corporate designed experiment in standardized testing.
And the taxes we pay? It's become a slush fund as needed to rescue platinum-class citizens from their own fraud.
Just so you know, it isn't just our few remaining manufacturing jobs.
It's the jobs you busted your ass for and went into debt to prove you are capable of doing.
Here's a short list of new jobs being lined up for Vietnam, India and China.
Want fair wages and benefits? You are not qualified to apply.
Engineering
Architecture
Insurance
Graphic Arts and Design
Editing and Journalism
Basic Research and Development
Computer Programming.
Medical Records, Imaging and Laboratory Testing
Paralegal
Accounting
Banking/Financial/Investment
Marketing
IT Management
Education
If you want to understand the roots of apathy and lack of participation in politics, start by looking at the relentless assault against working families by corporations and their representatives in Congress and the White House.
Living in the US isn't about opportunity and an equal chance to get ahead. It's just raw survival in a class war against working families.
There must be an unwritten rule that says each president has to leave office with a giant stain on future generations.
Generations were fucked over by NAFTA and Wall Street deregulation.
Even more were fucked over with Iraq.
Now Obama seeks to soil his legacy with TPP.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)QuestionAlways
(259 posts)while our hands are tied, they are free to do whatever they want
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)salib
(2,116 posts)Obama actually thinks this helps contain them. Silly.
India, on the other hand, has expressed interest in joining.
djean111
(14,255 posts)we care about the rest of the world? Right after they post that we just do not understand how great this is for American workers, of course.
Guess this solves the unaffordable college problem, too - why go to college if all the good jobs are out of the country? MacDonald's University for everyone!
Heh, as the jobs disappear, ACA may sink under its own weight, since more and more actual workers will need subsidies, and, of course the insurance companies and Pharma will keep demanding more and more money.
Any politician who voted for or supports/supported the TPP - no vote, and yeah, I know the consequences. let's just get it over with, is how I am feeling.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)isn't that what they told us in the 80's and 90's, move to where the jobs are...which was in the South. Then they reported on an amazing phenomenon....people moving to the sun belt, will wonders never cease?
Move for jobs, move for water, move for food...I don't see this working. Can't afford to live where you are because of gentrification, don't worry, a nice Rich Chinese person is buying up blocks of homes..move!
Lazy entitled Americans...
Disaster capitalism, ain't it great?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 18, 2015, 02:35 PM - Edit history (2)
joining latin americans in the migrant diaspora
Let me make it clear, since I've just been accused of attacking another (unnamed) poster:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6527770
I'm agreeing with your post.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and it's all ad hominem, nobody can prove the TPP is being purposely created to hurt us.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Now I see I am wrong, so I apologize.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Maraya1969
(22,462 posts)create or be part of some system the will take away America jobs. Maybe we don't know enough about it to make flat out judgements yet.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)and yes, I see that and more.
treestar
(82,383 posts)As Obama said, they become the market. You have to have people with money to sell to.
I remember the era where Americans were 5% of the population and took up 45% of the world' resources. And that was bad. Now it seems we want to keep things that way. We're not going to be able to. The world is moving on and we have to deal with that.
djean111
(14,255 posts)You honestly think those other countries are going to raise their wages?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Ours went up as well developed. do they have to be kept poor and third world so we can keep our jobs? I thought liberals complained when we were 5% of the population but used up so much more in the world's resources. But now it seems different? Explain economically how we can't keep our middle class lifestyles unless the Chinese and Indians stay poor.
djean111
(14,255 posts)will get richer. I see nothing to contradict that. Corporations make money by paying their employees less and giving them less benefits. Anyone who thinks that will change - is the person who is actually looking for a pony.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to where we are now? A business will get all of its costs as cheap as it can. I am a one woman operation now. I don't make enough to pay an employee. Does this make me evil? i am deliberately depriving someone of a job? And if I can generate enough to hire, I should make sure my assistant gets so much I still have to worry about my own bills, right?
djean111
(14,255 posts)The large corporations cut wages and benefits and either ship jobs to places like India and China, where they pay the workers much less, or just fire people and give their work to the remaining workers. They do this continuously. They use H-1B visas in order to hire IT people who will work for less. NONE of the corporations will raise salaries. And there is nothing in the TPP that will make them raise salaries.
If you are saying that the corporations who gave the lawyers who drafted the TPP in secret huge bonuses because the corporation realize that now they will have to pay worker in other countries more - can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge? The TPP is not just some trade agreement. It gives corporations rule over countries.
In any event, we shall see, won't we. The GOP and Obama are determined to push this through.
Bedfellows indeed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How big does a firm get before it is no longer a good place? How many employees must it have before it becomes evil?
Corporations and all employers will not deliberately pay more than the market will bear. There are laws restricting them, like the minimum wage, hours, etc. That's a reality. No employer has ever paid more than it had to. The redistribution can only be made via the law. They whine about it but they go along with it in the end. Look at Obamacare. That's a big transfer of wealth. That's why right wingers whine about it.
What in the TPP makes the value of labor any lower anywhere? Without the TPP they moved the jobs to where they were cheaper where they could. So I doubt that's the goal of the TPP or anyone negotiating it for the US.
arikara
(5,562 posts)Trade agreement is a misnomer, these are actually investor's rights agreements. There are no rights included in them for the 99% or for the environment, in fact they effectively strip away our rights.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Gives corporations power over governments. That's so backwards.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Response to djean111 (Reply #152)
Post removed
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Irish immigrants had a long history of organizing against the powerful and they started the labor movement. At least that's how I understand it. The bloody minded Irish and Scott's had something to do with it..but mostly the Irish gave us Unions.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And for you to compare yourself to the likes of a huge corporation that makes billions in profits is ridiculous. Really.
We're not talking individuals hiring others, we're not even talking about mom and pop businesses. We're talking about huge corporations. If you want to discuss this you have to stick to the subject at hand, not throw in situations that don't even apply.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)for a thousand dollars a month.
Try that in the US.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)This is a very important chart. Adjusting for inflation, Americans are much poorer than they were in 2000. Nominal growth is only useful if it is increasing at a faster pace than inflation. From 2000, the CPI itself has increased over 30 percent. Even to keep pace with the CPI, the median household income today should be at roughly $55,000 (we are 10 percent below that). If we go further back, we will realize that household income would need to be much higher to account for decades of stagnant growth for most Americans.
It is problematic when household incomes are growing so slow. When examined on a longer term horizon, you will realize that only the top 10 percent have really seen real income growth over the last 40+ years....
http://www.mybudget360.com/us-median-household-income-2013-household-income-american-household-income/
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I don't think that's what's happening. The top 20% has 85% of the country's wealth, how bad could it be? I don't call that spreading the wealth, do you. It isn't about us being greedy, lazy people and if you believe that, we live in a very different reality. I'm not a consumer in the American keeping up with the Joneses kind of way. So I don't know what you're talking about, maybe you'll explain.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Outer space....
haikugal
(6,476 posts)It's disorienting at times isn't it?!
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)These trade agreements are not being put in place to help workers, they are being put in place to help corporations. NAFTA proved that already. This is worse.
Along with stagnant wages, workers can no longer rely on their pensions being there when they retire as they have been being robbed by the corporate heads.
But a look at five decades worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages that is, after inflation is taken into account have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.
...
But after adjusting for inflation, todays average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.
...
What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and 3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
haikugal
(6,476 posts)My family has lived it. Not only did wages not keep up but our benefits were diminished gradually to damn near zero. Americans work hard with little time off and make sure you don't get sick, or have a sick child.
I'm done with blaming ourselves for our situation. I'm wondering how many elections were stollen since Kennedy. I think we need to organize and do what we can but we must support each other, we're all in this together and it's going to be rough, on purpose.
Wake up people!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Which will only happen with a period of crappy jobs - we went through that in the 19th century.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)they do not possess the world reserve currency.
Sorry if I misunderstood.
Skittles
(153,113 posts)here, have some REALITY
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)let's level the playing field!
djean111
(14,255 posts)playing field is under water now.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)This picture could be patterned right out of one Mel Brooks movie, "Blazing Saddles"
It's where the railroad worker falls over in exhaustion and his overload wants to doc him "a day's pay for napping on the job".
The scene is politically INCORRECT, but it states sardonically the REAL HUMAN HISTORY and what it portends when there unfettered capitalism with these trade agreements. It shows how LITTLE people are worth.
More people should be so politically incorrect. That's why that movie could never be made again.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Like there are a limited number of jobs and we should get them because we're American and not Chinese. If they have jobs, they are better off and can buy things from us. We're the richer country, so what's the complaint that some other countries come out the the third World?
StarzGuy
(254 posts)...bring other countries out of third world conditions? Where is it written? TPP is republicans wet dream. Multinational corporations could give a sh*t about our democracy or any other for that matter. But this, which may seem redundant, isn't a new phenomena. I knew with the election of Der Fuhrer (and saint) Reagan that the American experiment with democracy was about to go down the crapper. I tried my best to keep my head above water but anti teacher movement was also underway. I spent the next 30+ years treading water until I got sick and sank into the morass of poverty. Corporatist would just rather have me shut the F up and die already.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Are we going to stop them somehow? Tell them as they are not American, they have no right to a middle class existence?
Do we have to work against it?
Do the Chinese have to stay poor for us to stay middle class?
How do we make sure they stay poor?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)you know, right, that when their wages rise and their standard of living increases, that the corporations pull up and find workers cheaper elsewhere, leaving that country SOL? It's happening in China right now. This is economics 101. The workers demand better conditions, wages, etc. Their explosive growth slows. Their workers are now deemed 'too expensive' and so corporations abandon that country and then move to other countries desperate for shitty jobs. It's a never ending cycle and benefits no one but the rich.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why are we not still in the 19th century? You talk as if corporations can do without employees or customers and will always have the money rolling in from heaven or somewhere. We'd all be desperately poor in the US right now if it were that simple. The economy grows, it is not just moved around the planet.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)You are the one with the simplistic thinking. You believe that all companies are manufacturing companies that sell to Americans. You believe there is perpetual growth in the economy and that free trade raises everyone up. Well, it is much, much more complex than that.
Every single one of my business profs hated this deal. They said it was a horrible deal that would do nothing for the US and Canada (and in the long term, nothing for the foreign worker) except make the 1% richer. These were people with PHDs in economics, accounting, international business, marketing...From what I've read, and taking the history of free trade deals into account, I agree with them. This will be a disaster. It may take awhile for us to notice how bad it is, but by then it will be too late.
Rex
(65,616 posts)They seem to be completely ignorant of history or how the real world works.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)And I have a memory.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)from the late 19th century to today.
I'm sure experts disagree on this too.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)that the US was quite isolationist during that period of time, right? Basically quite the opposite of what it is doing now.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But now there is a lot more international travel and the internet. Seems to be increasing the middle class world wide. What about increasing international trade makes it so that there can be no middle class? Isolationism is not an option now.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Or as an alternative to a tariff they could manufacture the product in the U.S. with American workers.
But corporate greed being the norm now, they want it both ways. They want to pick the American consumers' pockets without ever putting any cash back in, neither through wages nor through import tariffs, nor through income taxes for that matter.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and the rest of the world goes on without us? What's the advantage to us? We'll go from being the richest nation in the world to the poor isolated one?
Corporatists are meanies and all, but they aren't going to be forced to stay.
Is it a privilege to sell things to each other country? That wording is odd. We go after that privilege, we're going to have to be a little bit allowing of ours.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)will fill the void with pleasure.
Maybe the president of that new business will only make $500 thousand a year instead of $20 million. Maybe their stock will only support modest gains, or maybe it will not be publicly traded company at all. It might be a foreign company or it might be domestic. Who knows? But one thing is definite. If there is profit to be made, someone will fill the void.
So fuck'em.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Countries make themselves.
Nothing we can do will make those countries middle class. They have to do it themselves and the only way to do it is with labor unions.
You really need to read up on basic economics. Countries with solid economies charge tariffs on goods made in other countries. Not doing so is economic suicide because it destroys industries. That is what is happening here. That is why the most successful countries on earth have tariffs on must manufactured goods.
You need to wake up, snap out of it and open your eyes. Is Germany isolated and left behind? They have very rigid tariff laws. So does Japan. I suppose Japan is 'left behind' and 'isolated and poor', because they have the strongest tariff laws on earth? No? The opposite is true.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)
Before Unions the middle class barely existed.
Every country in the world with a large middle class has strong unions, no exceptions.
If countries want to pull themselves out of wage slavery poverty (which you are ignorantly endorsing) they must develop strong labor unions and tariffs on goods manufactured outside their countries.
That is how countries develop and keep a middle class.
Consider yourself schooled.
appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)So much corporate hot air on this forum...sometimes it is unbelievable.
corporate hot air indeed
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)The shills for this are just saying that because of an inner, deep-seated disdain for the lumpen US working class and the fact they themselves will be either a) unaffected or b) gaining advantage.
So by exhorting us to fall on a grenade, they can promote some "feel good" abstract global community meme, while vanquishing the people ( us ) they disdain so much.
whathehell
(29,034 posts)responsible for it's own citizens -- The rest is bullshit.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)let the bastards kill you.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Seriously.
There is a sadistic bent to their bullshit.
Response to treestar (Reply #89)
Rex This message was self-deleted by its author.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)conditions. Bullcrap. They only care about profits. There is no reason to believe that working conditions will improve anywhere.
treestar
(82,383 posts)A business that does not profit will flop and employ nobody.
Businesses have other costs, too. High wages when they come about are because that business is doing well. i don't see a way around that. Are we going to see a law that all businesses must be nonprofits in our lifetime? And then we'd have no tax revenue. Or should all profit be forfeited to the government?
What of when a business starts failing? Can it lay off employees to try to stay in business, or should they be by law required to shut down completely, eliminating all of the jobs?
There's a bit of economic reality to deal with here. I see there is an assumption that the money will always be rolling in once a business reaches a certain size.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)tax dollars to help corporations move and make higher profits especially if they keep the profits for themselves. I don't want tax dollars to pay for "retraining" American workers. Make the corporations pay.
If Pres Obama, H. Clinton and the Third Way have their way, soon we will be tech support for companies in India.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Even if you take the cynical view they will look out for themselves rather than India.
They need to stay popular in the US. I just don't see them as selling us out for some translational group of 1%ers.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the USofA. I don't know where you live but where I live poverty is growing. Corporations don't give a crap about workers.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)What is so exceptional about poverty?
treestar
(82,383 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)You should reconsider your stance on this if you don't want to appear that way.
You are arguing in favor of big corporations and even completely ignoring the role of unions in this country. Why?
Response to treestar (Reply #260)
WillTwain This message was self-deleted by its author.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The people won't benefit from those sales, the corporations will. The people will lose out on jobs since the jobs will be outsourced - by your own admission.
And what are these people in other countries with all the new jobs going to buy from "us"? We hardly manufacture anything here anymore - your whole argument is to give jobs away to other countries, so what are we going to be making here to sell them?
And who is selling the goods? Corporations. These corporations are keeping their money overseas and beginning to set up shop overseas to avoid paying US taxes. They are not paying their American workers - or Chinese workers - a living wage. So when do we benefit from all of this outsourcing of jobs?
You keep repeating the same words but they don't explain anything. And in fact, you are leaving out a huge part of American history by ignoring the well known fact that unions are what helped the US workers, not free trade agreements.
The only thing you are standing up for in this thread is corporations. Is that what you intended?
Skittles
(153,113 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Truth is important. We are fed mealy-mouthed propaganda to rationalize and justify, but what you just wrote is the truth of what we face.
Corporate money has corrupted our government and subverted our democracy itself.
Bernie Sanders is right. We need nothing less than political revolution.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What a nightmare.
okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)it is about the TPP that will send any job to Asia Clearly you don't even understand what the TPP is.
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't know about the millions of jobs to Asia, but Stiglitz who is far, far more of an expert than the President is deeply alarmed by the TPP:
<snip>
Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the world are already low. The focus has shifted to nontariff barriers, and the most important of these for the corporate interests pushing agreements are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
Whats more, those regulations were often put in place by governments responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the bottom.
<snip>
Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims, the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well. American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government getting rights as a foreign company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the government is strongest.
There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into corporate coffers: thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have to be compensated. Thats why we have a patent system. But the patent system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more available. Ive written before about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily. Trade agreements provide even more opportunities for patent abuse.
<snip>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_r=0
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts):/
Marr
(20,317 posts)Indeed, he's gone on elsewhere as if he didn't even read it, repeating the same point and demands for evidence to the contrary.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Unvanguard
(4,588 posts)It's right there in the second sentence of your excerpt: "Tariffs around the world are already low." Stiglitz's critique of the TPP has nothing to do with its supposed potential to enable imports of goods produced by foreign cheap labor.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)As smart an economist as there has ever been. The picture he paints is a profoundly bleak one.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)all along. He has done some wonderful things, don't get me wrong, be he has always been "Their" guy. Hillary is "Their" gal, because they cover the bases. TPP is very bad for most Americans, as was NAFTA and the others. They are pushing this through in secret really fast before we can mount a serious opposition. OBAMA is central to this effort, so how can you ignore this? How can you ignore all the Wall Streeters getting away with massive fraud, crashing the economy, and no indictments? It's just like the cops who shoot UN-armed black men not getting indicted, a perversion of the law that Obama has allowed to happen.
Hillary supporters, this is what we will get under her too! We have to look at everyone based on where their campaign money comes from!
okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)actually read what the administration has to say about it.
The b.s. about it being a "secret" deal doesn't get too far with me. I understand why it had to be negotiated in secret. I'm okay with a 30 day review period before the vote. If congress is doing its job, they will have their calenders clear to hear testimony and debate this bill the entire time. The GOP would love nothing more than to destroy anything Obama does. Not having a time frame would end up like most of the confirmations.
I want the added IP enforcement. If we want jobs in America everyone needs to play by rules similar to ours or we can't compete. When countries violate IP laws they can manufacture goods cheaper than the US and take our jobs. When they don't have the labor regulations and environmental regulations they can produce goods cheaper than the US and take our jobs.
I understand the issues and may very well support the TPP. I'm not buying into all the bs.I read hear on DU without any FACTS or DATE to back it up.
cali
(114,904 posts)I suspect you would ignore anything that doesn't dovetail with what you so ardently believe. I didn't start out opposing the TPP; I researched it. I'm not going to bother giving you links to additional substantive arguments, filled with facts, against the TPP, because your mind is clearly firmly closed
But don't hand us the lie that you aren't being provided with anything but bullshit by those of us who oppose it
By the way, you can't expect any kind of impartial assessment from those trying to enact the agreement. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read what they have to say ore than that to understand it.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)IF.... one isn't sure one way or the other about what this means to American labor, you sure should be able to get a clue from the secrecy and thrust to get this offal shoved thru congress. When we're not even allowed to SEE the fish, we can bet it stinks WAY WORSE than we've surmised!
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)As they'd be, as it fattens the one percent's wallets and puts downward pressure on US employees compensation.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)is by definition going to result in a colossal reaming for the average Joe and Jane. It should be avoided like a shipful of plague rats.
appalachiablue
(41,103 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Simply referring to the opinions of other opponents and then talking them up as experts is not proof. In fact it implies blind faith in them, which we are not allowed to have in our elected representatives.
If we did not do any trade agreements, likely we would be disadvantaged when other countries have them. Common sense says we have to deal with international trade in this century. If they don't like what is in the TPP, they should explain what should be in the TPP in their opinion.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)facts or dates, just hit & run "you lie!"
okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)some info:
Intellectual Property Rights
As the worlds most innovative economy, strong and effective protection and enforcement of IP rights is critical to U.S. economic growth and American jobs. Nearly 40 million American jobs are directly or indirectly attributable to IP-intensive industries. These jobs pay higher wages to their workers, and these industries drive approximately 60 percent of U.S. merchandise exports and a large share of services exports. In TPP, we are working to advance strong, state-of-the-art, and balanced rules that will protect and promote U.S. exports of IP-intensive products and services throughout the Asia-Pacific region for the benefit of producers and consumers of those goods and services in all TPP countries. The provisions that the United States is seeking guided by the careful balance achieved in existing U.S. law will promote an open, innovative, and technologically-advanced Asia-Pacific region, accelerating invention and creation of new products and industries across TPP countries, while at the same time ensuring outcomes that enable all TPP countries to draw on the full benefits of scientific, technological, and medical innovation, and take part in development and enjoyment of new media, and the arts.
Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:
Strong protections for patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, including safeguards against cyber theft of trade secrets;
Commitments that obligate countries to seek to achieve balance in their copyright systems by means of, among other approaches, limitations or exceptions that allow for the use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research;
Pharmaceutical IP provisions that promote innovation and the development of new, lifesaving medicines, create opportunities for robust generic drug competition, and ensure affordable access to medicines, taking into account levels of development among the TPP countries and their existing laws and international commitments;
New rules that promote transparency and due process with respect to trademarks and geographical indications;
Strong and fair enforcement rules to protect against trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy, including rules allowing increased penalties in cases where counterfeit or pirated goods threaten consumer health or safety; and
Internet service provider safe harbor provisions, as well as strong and balanced provisions regarding technological protection measures to foster new business models and legitimate commerce in the digital environment.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-chapter-chapter-negotiating-9
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Strong protections for patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets...
Pharmaceutical IP provisions...
New rules that promote transparency and due process with respect to trademarks...
Strong and fair enforcement rules to protect against trademark counterfeiting...
Internet service provider safe harbor provisions...
Joe Turner
(930 posts)What a senseless statement. Actually we have a long track of similar trade agreements that have proven in real time to be a disaster for working Americans. Our trade deficit bleeds hundreds of billions a year, every year, since going down the "free trade" path. Americans have seen their good paying jobs sent overseas by the tens of millions. The standard of living for most Americans has dropped steadily since the 1980s. That is a mountain of proof that TPP will only exacerbate the economics hardship Americans face. That maybe a handful of provisions may have some positive attributes is no reason to enact an wide ranging agreement that allows corporations worldwide to trump our laws and regulations. You TPP flacks are going to have to try harder with your propaganda.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)I wish I could rec a post.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)and they always expect total agreement on nothing else. Just a vague hatred of "Wall Street." And it is true that we lose jobs because the Indians and Chinese can work cheaper and make up half the population of the planet. The only solution is to get them demanding as much in pay as we can get. This is why they offer no solutions, or, their solution is to go back to the farms and small businesses and factories and pretend the rest of the world does not exist. Which likely would not work, anyway.
People have observed being in Asia that so much is going on there, it looks like we are being left behind.
okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)will raise the cost of their goods and make ours more competitive. One of the reasons China can provide cheap goods is that they steal patented technology. The TPP would force them to pay for that, which would increase the cost of their goods. Ditto labor protections, and the enviornmental protections. China can't join the TPP right now because of the requirements for government transparency either.
The TPP is supposed to have some sort of protectionist measures for those who are TPP countries. This hopefuly will help take buisness away from China and give it to better actors in global commerce.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)It's not as if they control our politicians, award themselves mega billions in bonuses, engage in high risk derivatives that destabilize the banking system and promote policies that let corporations do whatever the hell they like.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and makes leaps of cause and effect. And accusations of downright blackmail and bribery.
They have been called on those who did the derivatives, etc. They caused a recession and the Republicans lost.
But you can't honestly say we'd be better off if Wall Street were somehow killed or eliminated.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)I think an unregulated business environment is great. Just ask China.
treestar
(82,383 posts)saying how the 1% is this big club and they are doing all this like the TPP just for themselves and Wall Street connives with them and us poor victims can't seem to stop them. In spite of all the regulation that does exist in the U.S. Corporatists, banksters and cronies run it all. I think I am referring to some of that which is upthread. They own the government, that kind of expression.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)History is littered with governments that become corrupt and eventually crumble. Accusing people that observe the corruption in our political process and rail against it, as being conspiracy buffs is a pretty pathetic response. When the rich funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into political campaigns what the heck do you call that? And what do you think they are getting for their money?
That is a simple narrative, it is all the corporate apologists can come up with! CERTAINLY they cannot read current events or facts in relation to current events.
They yap conspiracy, because there is no way they can have a real debate about Wall Street...facts are dead set against them. I LOVE how obvious they make it too! Every time they post their narrative drivel...someone else wakes up and pays attention!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Joe Turner
(930 posts)I have to ask. Where have you been the last 30 some years. You don't need to stuff cash into a politician's pocket to get them to do something for you. Today blackmail and bribery have been codified into law. If you're a deep pocketed businessperson you just form a PAC or hire a stable of lobbyists to fund a whole slate of politicians to your liking and fund attack ads on the politicians you don't like. Oh and that straw-man of killing Wall Street is laughable. This country did very well when Wall Street was regulated. If that to you means "Killing" Wall Street, maybe you can get Bill O'Reilly to help you ghost write a book on poor Wall Street. I think he owns the Killing Title.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But when they use "Wall Street" as this general pejorative, it starts to sound insane. Like the stock exchange exists just to extort money from the little guy.
I'm not that cynical about all politicians. I seriously doubt more than a few of them are readily simply "bought." Too many competing interests anyway.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I swear it borders on performance art so many times.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Since we're discussing the TPP passing, after all.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Joe Turner
(930 posts)Truth is, Wall Street has spent billions on our elections in the last 3 decades to dismantle a lot of sensible regulation that would have helped prevent that financial collapse 8 years ago. Even after the mortgage/stock market collapses there has been very little regulation enacted to prevent that from happening again. It's what money buys and you don't have to be a conspiracy buff to notice the money trail and see where it goes.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yup. Enron was their model. "We can fleece the globe and get away with it."
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Just like the Bailouts: They get to keep the money they stole and We the Taxpayers get to pick up the tab.
No wonder they hate socialism for everybody else.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)china + india = 36.4% of world population.
The US is the next-biggest slice, but it's just 4.4% of the world, and everyone else is less than that -- though together we its 63.6% of the world.
But I guess the rest of the world should just resign themselves to poverty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population
treestar
(82,383 posts)Where will the rest of us go when there is no "Wall Street." Obama has no motive for this, other than belonging to the elite 1% club that wants to destroy the rest of us. If they can do that, why is it taking them so long? I picture gleefully laughing in their mansions as the rest of us starve, as that's what this view boils down to.
And they could not survive without the rest of us for customers and employees. Where are jobs going to come from when Wall Street is taken down?
I really don't think people think this through. They want to be the victim of some vast conspiracy and get to be that forever, since apparently the 1% is not able to starve us all and on the other hand, we never do enough to bring down Wall Street.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)You sound like a panicked child. I'll say one thing, you sure like to paint arguments into the silly fringes of extreme. There is a huge, huge middle ground in the area of sensible regulation that would be add stability to our financial system, curb wall street excesses, while letting everyone prosper including wall street. But that of course doesn't work in your world of environmental protection of the Wall Street Racket.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Everything you are arguing is conservative - pro-corporation, pro-Wall Street, pro-outsourcing of jobs, you don't even want Wall Street to be regulated!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)It's not a reflection of the economy. Sales in China impact the shares as much as sales at home.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)What an excellent post!
And I hate to admit how wrong I was about Barack Obama. I was way way wrong. TPTB knew exactly how to hoodwink us, and they did.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)you've got a future.
The rest of us? Not so sure.
2banon
(7,321 posts)that poster's talking points are very revealing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or hopes they start doing it and leave us behind? Wall Street is supposed to be accepted as evil in this country? We are the richest country in the world.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)This isn't about trading - tariffs are uniformly low everywhere. This is about rolling back wages and regulations in first-world countries to third-world levels and it is about absolutely nothing else except increased profits for Big Busine$$ and serfdom for the masses.
The Race to the Bottom is the name of this game.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Response to hifiguy (Reply #204)
WillTwain This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I trust Obama, what has he done to not earn that trust, Democrats??? Buehler?
Do not trust him if you like....can I have the details why not.....or is general hair on fire the argument?
Folks do realize unions were also in favor of Keystone XL?
Obama is right...unions are always against internstional trade...jobs is always the battle cry, but it is often a false cry...remember the hair on fire for NAFTA? Same thing.
In truth the 20% increase in the dollar will cost many more jobs than freer trade.
2banon
(7,321 posts)okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Love to see the supporters of TPP link to some features of this trade agreement that will be good for American workers. These links might even be coupled with past free trade agreements that also have the same feature and a description of how it has profited American workers.
okaawhatever
(9,457 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Strong protections for patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, including safeguards against cyber theft of trade secrets;
Commitments that obligate countries to seek to achieve balance in their copyright systems...
Pharmaceutical IP provisions....
New rules that promote transparency and due process with respect to trademarks... and geographical indications;
Strong and fair enforcement rules to protect against trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy...
Internet service provider safe harbor provisions, as well as strong and balanced provisions regarding technological protection measures...
It's amazing what some people will support in order to defend their idol. That's the only explanation, and in this case the poster tipped their hand upthread with their emotional "more Obama bashing" cry.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)On most internet forums lurkers outnumber posters in the multiples, usually somewhere around five to seven times. DU is a very "tough room" and a lot of readers are afraid to post because a low post count often leads to getting your ass chewed up here.
I know someone who needs a hip replacement yesterday or last year, they have Obamacare but lack the money to pay the deductible, copays and so forth so they are doing without and working through pain every day.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And then it turned out that NAFTA sent lots of jobs to Mexico?
Boy, they should be so embarrassed for being exactly right.
treestar
(82,383 posts)in Obama, the Democratic President, but are to blindly side with unions on everything. Like that word is a magical and good word while "bank" or "Wall Street" are evil words that cause damage.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)all the rage.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it is used all the time here. Especially for ODS.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)fought and bled for workers rights while banks and Wall Street fought them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I mean call me a fangirl, but he just does not believe that. They disagree with him about the TPP, and have no idea how to support for their side of the argument, so that they have to resort to this. Obama has no motive to do any such thing purposely and knowingly.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I see we've once again reached the phase where we replace denying he'll pass it with explaining it's virtues.
treestar
(82,383 posts)or motives for his evil attempts to drain our country of jobs knowingly.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)(after all he once served with Saul Alinsky on a board). And his evil intent to impose Sharia Law on us. Fortunately he's not making much progress.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)You described our future perfectly if this damn thing goes through.
How horrible for a Democratic President to be pushing it!!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Will we ever be able to trust anything they say.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)This deal about increasing fair trade with Asia and global free trade is what built the modern world. Without it we would still be hunting wooly mammoths with spears.
There are many legitimate reasons to push this but I think the most important is to increase our ties with our Asian friends which will help block China from dominating that region. No doubt there may be negative effects but the bottom line is the benefits far out-weigh the negatives.. imo.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)why aren't we passing a bill saying all American corporations doing business in China must cease and desist and return operations to America.
If they refuse, we will block their imports.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I think the goal is simply to help other Asian countries resist China's aggressions.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)If China is the evil aggressor and there are American companies operating within China, why are they not part of the problem?
Is this the domino theory revived with Vietnam again? If 1 country falls to China(Communism), the whole region,Asian countries, are in danger.
How does China's aggression affect Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile etc?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)In some ways yes but so are we. The point is starting a trade war with China is not the answer.
BTW, have you seen China's map of the South China Sea?
They claim to have rights of nearly the entire sea and are in disputes with almost every country in the region. Those countries welcome the US to counter balance China's aggression.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)operating in China part of the problem?
Is TPP an evil aggression? " evil aggressor .... but so are we"
So the Domino Theory returns to life. Vietnam just can't seem to get away from these dominos.
"US to counter balance China's aggression" sounds like the beginning of a trade war to me.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)made china what it is today, quite deliberately
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)why isn't Africa part of the TPP?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)I will not answer anymore of your questions until you answer mine.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You ask me about polls and risks? Seriously. I bet you oppose Hillary Clinton and are betting on a long shot to win the Primary against her....and you speak of polls and risks?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)doesn't work on this level/stage?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Do you hate lots of people?
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)It's a deal with the devil - we send China jobs for their cheap, brutal and unregulated labor markets and in return they get education, training and money to build their infrastructure.
In return for making the smallest minority of US oligarchs impossibly rich, we get 25% black unemployment, tax dodging corporations, states with 3rd world levels of poverty, prisons filled with people accused of minor offenses and a predatory banking/health/education system that exploits and abuses the non-rich. Ironically, DoD is demanding more money to face the threat of China.
TPP compounds the average American citizen's misery with incredible extra-judicial corporate tribunals and absurd intellectual property restrictions.
TPP advances the argument that "People are not people. Corporations are people."
DCBob
(24,689 posts)They were sorely needed.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)thing to happen to individual opportunity for advancement in many, many generations. Fuck the patent system. It is so tilted in the favor of corporations that the expense and effort needed to compete is not worth the effort. TPP doesn't do a damn thing to change that.
With a name like "DCBob" and your establishment talking points, I suspect Political Science is your specialty.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Or that is was that simple.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)owned firms but by foreign firms that are using China as an export platform...In 2003, for example, foreign firms accounted for 92% of China's $41 billion in exports of computers, components, and peripherals and 74% of China's $89 billion in exports of electronics and telecommunications equipment..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=leGJ224BOG8C&pg=PA664&dq=chinese+electronics+wholly+foreign+owned&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4GIzVfiRF4XjoASVoYDQBA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=chinese%20electronics%20wholly%20foreign%20owned&f=false
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)And the real truth is, we don't even know what is REALLY going on.
cali
(114,904 posts)<snip>
Controversy has erupted, and justifiably so. Based on the leaks and the history of arrangements in past trade pacts it is easy to infer the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesnt look good. There is a real risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the expense of everyone else. The fact that such a plan is under consideration at all is testament to how deeply inequality reverberates through our economic policies.
Worse, agreements like the TPP are only one aspect of a larger problem: our gross mismanagement of globalization.
Lets tackle the history first. In general, trade deals today are markedly different from those made in the decades following World War II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living would rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.
Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the world are already low. The focus has shifted to nontariff barriers, and the most important of these for the corporate interests pushing agreements are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.
Whats more, those regulations were often put in place by governments responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the bottom.
<snip>
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_r=0
annabanana
(52,791 posts)The focus has shifted to nontariff barriers, and the most important of these for the corporate interests pushing agreements are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment. [/blockquoe
The single most important thing for those confused about the uproar to understand.
TPP is different.
TPP takes the power right out of the hands at the most local level. YOUR town hall, YOUR yard.. literally.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Well he did promise us "change".
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Nothing to get alarmed about, just giving the "Job Creators" the right to undermine local, state and federal laws they feel might be getting in the way of making more profit.
PrefersaPension
(48 posts)please pay more attention to "policies" and put the childish snark aside for one day.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Welcome to DU, new poster, where ODS is also alive and well.
As you can see.
cali
(114,904 posts)You rely on your emotional hyper-partisanship. Blind trust.
littlemissmartypants
(22,589 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)the internet of things puts our ordinary behaviors on line and available to NSA and corporations.
From there they model us into a category of citizen (to give us better service). Our behaviors will be collated and eventually compiled into a citizen score.
Those with high scores will be given opportunities in education, investment and employment. Those with low scores will be further pushed into the margins of society.
Here's what is being planned for "big data" processors.
how often we use washing machines,
our school grades
how often we use atm and how much we save/spend
how fast we drive and where,
who we talk to and visit,
how often we restock our refrigerator,
how often we use our printer
the temperature of our homes
what we watch on tv
medical records
As someone who spent their entire life in technology related businesses, trust me when I tell you, this is not going to end well for democracy, justice and equality.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I don't know much about technology but I know enough to understand how it works...everything we have is connected to the internet...cars, our computers even out household appliances.
Orwell had no idea it would be that pervasive...all he had was TV.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)The whole 'data mining' thing freaks me out-guess I'm a neo-Luddite.
littlemissmartypants
(22,589 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)They didn't let him read it either.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)corporate shills. Nothing else can explain such blatant toadyism.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And even if he delivers a bag of shit to working people those in the cult will deny it and claim it was not him that did it...or that shit smells good and good for us.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)SamKnause
(13,088 posts)Lori Wallach and Representative Alan Grayson discussed this
on Democracy Now Thursday, April 16th.
Rep. Grayson said it was a punch to the face of American workers.
http://www.democracynow.org/ Video title " A Corporate Trojan Horse"
President Obama is shoving it down our throats.
Hillary helped to write it.
Yet, it seems the majority here support Hillary.
I am beginning to think the majority of Democratic politicians are turncoats.
The Chamber of Commerce loves the TPP.
The majority of Republicans love the TPP.
Global corporations love the TPP.
Wall Street loves the TPP.
That should be a bright red flag for anyone who supports Hillary.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)it's HER TURN!!
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)Just doesn't make sense.....Wyden (D-OR) is for it...this doesn't make sense....not with all the good that, come hell or high water (hummmm) they have done in spite of the nutties in congress....
Just doesn't....
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)And it will send millions of jobs overseas? That kind of certainty makes it sound as if there is a chapter titled 'How America will send millions of jobs overseas.'
It's hysteria like this that makes others tune out, doing the exact opposite of gathering people together for a common cause.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You must be a racist who voted for Palin...
His legacy is that of the most conservative, corporate Dem in history. TPP doesn't "soil it". It cements it
2banon
(7,321 posts)If memory serves we've been sounding off alarms for the past 6 years I think (?) on TPP.... right here on DU. To be met with post after endless posts of denials and lots of "Blue Links" "proving" we were all wrong and accused of tin hat foilery etc. Amazing.
And now I'm actually reading denials right here, not freeperville, but right here on DU that Obama says it's oky doky, so of course it's oky doky. That NAFTA was oky doky too.
Really?
What the fuck universe do you people live? Wall Street? Washington DC?
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)CEOs are exempt from justice and killing thousands of civilians with drones in places like Yemen will maintain political stability.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Corporations and corporate government/political machines have deep pockets.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)but there are still so many here in complete denial of these basic facts. Sad. I've always thought liberals were evidence-nased thinkers. I guess I was wrong about that tse
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The most prolific poster on this thread defending the TPP has stuck up for corporations and Wall Street and outsourcing of jobs. No liberal would ever do that. And s/he was insulted when someone called them conservative.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)where labor is concerned, Obama doesn't have much of a legacy to soil
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)I read through the replies and was right. How did NAFTA/CAFTA work out for us?
I swear, Obama could say we need to cut down the number of poor people by 100 each month so we'll execute them and some Bots would defend it.
With the TPP the secrecy, security, the mum is the word aspect of this it, if you aren't skeptical your radar is not working. If it was so good for us here why not trumpet it?
So called progressives defending this puzzle me. Some may have a financial interest in doing it, some just can't bring themselves to oppose anything Obama does or says.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)from whitehouse.gov when frightened.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)May the flying spaghetti monster come to our rescue.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)The same shills move the goalposts of the debate and contradict themselves. Adroit weaving, dodging weasels.
We'll point to NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT as the most recent demonstrations of how those agreements harmed the US working class; and they'll say ( and have said ) something like "No no no no, this is NOT going to be like NAFTA...it'll fix those wrongs....blah blah blah"
In other debates surrounding the same treaties, the bastards will have the balls to claim NAFTA was actually good, or not a cause of the decline of the US working class. They'll cherry pick and use aggregate data, or define "success" so broadly it's beyond abstract. Or they'll whitewash the trade deficit by cheerily chirping about an increase in "total trade".
A more blatant unveiling of their contempt for the working class here is the flip-flopping or morphing of the harmful vs not debate:
They'll at first claim that the ill effects of free trade we speak of are illusory, only to come right out and say "OK it's true but it's of no consequence" and a price we pay to lift the 3rd world shitpits out of poverty. ( translation: fatten the bottom line of US multinationals via labor arbitrage while making us feel good about "global community" horseshit )
The playing field will level out, they say. Their standards will raise to meet our lowered ones. We'll be better off in the long run, they say. However, as Keynes noted....and what is so logically obvious "In the long run, we're all dead".
So IF this actually happens, they're wanting us to accept lower standards now for some "two in the bush" many generations later. BUT: The immediate payoff to corporations due to labor arbitrage is NOW.
The mooks pushing this know all that; that's why they weave, dodge, and tap-dance so much in these discussions.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Good stuff in there.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)"The immediate payoff to corporations due to labor arbitrage is NOW."
as is the immediate loss to the majority of working people globally.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Secrecy, corporate shills and lawyers...sorry just came to me and my editor is on vacation today. Great thread BTW, I hang out and learn.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It is really very simple.
Their media already characterizes the infirm as useless eaters, just not in so many words.
Their media always characterizes the black community in a negative way. Their media is using race to sway the ignorant.
They're using faux patriotism to sway the people.
We are being bombarded with Ultra Nationalism. NFL USA celebrations before each game.
We are there.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)We seem to keep meeting..
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)The twelve Pacific Rim countries participating in the negotiations are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.
I oppose destroying and degrading the local environment to produce useless consumer goods in far away countries and to enrich absentee owners. I oppose legal and political structures that permit more powerful nations and corporations to steal the natural resources of the less powerful.
With or without the TPP, free trade dominates much of the world. Multinational corporations are already among the most powerful enterprises on the planet. GATT already exists and is the main vehicle for globalization. We already have the IMF, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. I'm not certain that the TPP makes the situation any worse than the GATT alone. I hardly think that formalizing certain trade practices with Canada, Japan, and the rest is going to make any huge difference one way or the other.
Even so, I'm voting for the Democratic candidate, whoever that person may be. Even one that favors the TPP against my objections. I'm going to support the Democratic Party and oppose any actions that weaken the Democratic Party and strengthen the Republican Party.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)have existing and exclusive job killing agreements with, i.e. China, India, Mexico, Korea, etc.
TPP just piles more shit on top of shit.
As far as "free trade" dominating the world, that is 100% false. We have a exploitative system which allows corporations to send jobs to low wage, low skill labor in countries with few worker protections while hiding tax-free profits from those endeavors in the same countries (which eventually gets laundered back to the pockets of investment banks and CEOs). TPP doesn't stop this. In fact, it makes it an institutional practice protected by law.
New signatories are not allowed until after ratification. China has expressed interest in joining. India will no doubt follow suit. Regardless, there is nothing but job losses, lower wages and higher costs for working families as a result of this agreement.
As for your patriotic affirmation and blind compliance no matter who or what, your deflection and accusation has been noted. BTW - blind unquestioning compliance and authoritarian pledges don't you a good Democrat (or citizen). It makes you a passive opportunity for exploitation.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)I oppose trade agreements that establish supranational courts that can overrule local laws. I oppose the TPP. But this is a matter for internal deliberation within the Democratic Party. I will not do anything that strengthens the Republican Party. Anything that strengthens the Republican Party and allows them to gain and consolidate power is far more destructive to everything I value than anything the Democrats might do.
I completely support pressing for party reform, third party building, movement building, etc. But I will not empower the Republican Party in any way.
You can do what you want. Rip into the Democrats good. Send the Democratic Party a message. Let the Republicans keep control of the house and senate. Attack the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she might be, ruthlessly and publicly. Let Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz have the White House for eight years. That'll send a message.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)try this on behalf of Global Corporations before they leave office.
Bush tried it at the same point in his Term of Office, AFTER he got a second term.
It was defeated.
Fast Tracking this means giving up Congress' right to negotiate trade deals. I'm not even sure if it's legal. But then we've learned that laws no longer apply to those who are above the law.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He does not think any of those things will happen and would not support anything he thought would make that happen.
Disagree with him about how he is going about it, but saying this about him is wrong.
ann---
(1,933 posts)or he would be against it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People who disagree with you are always evil in intent because they know you are right?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I used to think very highly of the President too. No more.
PrefersaPension
(48 posts)...when CEOs in our country make 300 times over their co-workers, we should be protesting in the streets, not on some blog. I don't think anyone here hates the POTUS, but damn straight we can hate on bad policy. Chew on that awhile...
I appreciate your loyalty, but your blind faith scares the bejeesus out of me only because there are too many of that sort of thinking out there...really scary...
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's possible to disagree on the policy. I think Obama more likely to be right than you, which is not blind faith.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)but you can't show that it's not bad. You are exercising blind faith when you suppose that he's doing the right thing, especially when it's something he's attempting to do in secret. If it's so great for the people why hasn't he been shouting about it from the rooftops?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I now see him for what he is. Why would you hate Newt Gingrich but love Obama? They have a similar objective.
WillTwain
(1,489 posts)When he realized Larry Summers is in charge and he is just Larry's assistant.
Obama is the lead singer that attracts the fans so the record company can sell more songs.
He is a tool.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Look how that turned out for us.
USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 was rushed the same way.
Look how that turned out for us.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Tried warning everybody back in 2008:
Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.
The Sting
In the best rip-off, the mark never knows that he or she was set up for fleecing.
In the case of the great financial meltdown of 2008, the victim is the U.S. taxpayer.
Going by the lack of analysis in Corporate McPravda, We the People are in for a royal fleecing.
Dont just take my word about the current situation between giant criminality and the politically connected.
[font color="green"][font size="5"]You see, there is evidence of conspiracy. An honest FBI agent warned us in 2004 about the coming financial meltdown and the powers-that-be stiffed him, too.[/font size][/font color]
The storys below. And its not fiction. It is true to life.
The Set-Up
You dont have to be a fan of Paul Newman or Robert Redford to smell a BFEE rat. The oily critters name is Gramm. Phil Gramm. He helped Ronald Reagan push through his trickle-down fiscal policy and later helped de-regulate the nation's once-healthy Saving & Loan industry. We all know how well that worked out: Know your BFEE: They Looted Your Nations S&Ls for Power and Profit.
In 1999, then-super conservative Texas U.S. Senator Gramm helped pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. This law allowed banks to act like investment houses. Using federally-guaranteed savings accounts, banks now could make risky commercial and real-estate loans.
The law shouldve been called the Gramm-Lansky Act. To those who gave a damn, it was obviously a potential disaster. During the bills debate, the specter of a taxpayer bail-out was raised by Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, warning about what had happened to the deregulated S&Ls.
Gramm wasnt alone on the deregulation bandwagon. The law passed, IIRC, like 89-9. More than a few of my own Democratic faves went along with this deregulation, get-government-off-the-back-of-business law.
Today we have their love child, MOABfor the Mother Of All Bailouts.
The Mark
In a sting, someone has to supply the money to be ripped off. Crooks call that person the mark or target or mope. In the present case, thats the U.S. taxpayer.
Todays financial crisis seems like a re-run of what happened to the Savings & Loans industry in the late 1980s. Well it is a lot like what happened to the S&Ls. Then, as now, its the U.S. taxpayer who gets to pick up the tab for someone elses party.
Dont worry, U.S. taxpayer. Youre getting something (among several things) for your $700 billion. Youre getting all the bad mortgage-based paper on almost all of Wall Street. Id rather have penny stocks, because if there ever was something of negative value its the complicated notes and derivatives based on this mortgage debt.
When it comes to Bush economic policy, left holding the bag are We the People, er, Mopes. Dont worry, it cant get worse. As St. Ronnie would say, Well. Yes. You see, what the bag U.S. taxpayers hold is less than empty. Its filled with bad debt.
The Mastermind
Chief economist amongst these merry band of thieves and traitors was one Phil Gramm (once a conservative Democrat and then an ultraconservative Republican-Taxus). An economist by training and reputation, Gramm was one of the guiding lights of Reaganomics, the cut taxes, domestic spending, and regulations while raising defense-spending to new heights. In sum, it was a fiscal policy to enrich friends especially the kind connected to the BFEE.
Foreclosure Phil
Years before Phil Gramm was a McCain campaign adviser and a lobbyist for a Swiss bank at the center of the housing credit crisis, he pulled a sly maneuver in the Senate that helped create today's subprime meltdown.
David Corn
MotherJones.com
May 28, 2008
Who's to blame for the biggest financial catastrophe of our time? There are plenty of culprits, but one candidate for lead perp is former Sen. Phil Gramm. Eight years ago, as part of a decades-long anti-regulatory crusade, Gramm pulled a sly legislative maneuver that greased the way to the multibillion-dollar subprime meltdown. Yet has Gramm been banished from the corridors of power? Reviled as the villain who bankrupted Middle America? Hardly. Now a well-paid executive at a Swiss bank, Gramm cochairs Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign and advises the Republican candidate on economic matters. He's been mentioned as a possible Treasury secretary should McCain win. That's right: A guy who helped screw up the global financial system could end up in charge of US economic policy. Talk about a market failure.
Gramm's long been a handmaiden to Big Finance. In the 1990s, as chairman of the Senate banking committee, he routinely turned down Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's requests for more money to police Wall Street; during this period, the sec's workload shot up 80 percent, but its staff grew only 20 percent. Gramm also opposed an sec rule that would have prohibited accounting firms from getting too close to the companies they auditedat one point, according to Levitt's memoir, he warned the sec chairman that if the commission adopted the rule, its funding would be cut. And in 1999, Gramm pushed through a historic banking deregulation bill that decimated Depression-era firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and securities firmssetting off a wave of merger mania.
But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial services industryfriends who gave him millions over his 24-year congressional careercame on December 15, 2000. It was an especially tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered deadeven by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.
It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiworkfar from it. The balding and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swapsand would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."
Subprime 1-2-3
Don't understand credit default swaps? Don't worryneither does Congress. Herewith, a step-by-step outline of the subprime risk betting game. Casey Miner
CONTINUED
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclo...
A fine mind for modern Bushonomics. Kill the middle class. Then, rob from the poor to give to the rich.
The Mentor
Anyone whos ever heard him talk knows that Gramm mustve learned all this stuff from somebody. He could never think it all up on his own. He had to have help. Thats where Meyer Lansky, the man who brought modern finance to the Mafia, comes in.
Money Laundering
Answers.com
EXCERPT...
History
Modern development
The act of "money laundering" was not invented during the Prohibition era in the United States, but many techniques were developed and refined then. Many methods were devised to disguise the origins of money generated by the sale of then-illegal alcoholic beverages. Following Al Capone's 1931 conviction for tax evasion, mobster Meyer Lansky transferred funds from Florida "carpet joints" (small casinos) to accounts overseas. After the 1934 Swiss Banking Act, which created the principle of bank secrecy, Meyer Lansky bought a Swiss bank to which he would transfer his illegal funds through a complex system of shell companies, holding companies, and offshore accounts.(1)
The term "money laundering" does not derive, as is often said, from Al Capone having used laundromats to hide ill-gotten gains. It was Meyer Lansky who perfected money laundering's older brother, "capital flight," transferring his funds to Switzerland and other offshore places. The first reference to the term "money laundering" itself actually appears during the Watergate scandal. US President Richard Nixon's "Committee to Re-elect the President" moved illegal campaign contributions to Mexico, then brought the money back through a company in Miami. It was Britain's Guardian newspaper that coined the term, referring to the process as "laundering." 3)
Process
Money laundering is often described as occurring in three stages: placement, layering, and integration.(3)
Placement: refers to the initial point of entry for funds derived from criminal activities.
Layering: refers to the creation of complex networks of transactions which attempt to obscure the link between the initial entry point, and the end of the laundering cycle.
Integration: refers to the return of funds to the legitimate economy for later extraction.
However, The Anti Money Laundering Network recommends the terms
Hide: to reflect the fact that cash is often introduced to the economy via commercial concerns which may knowingly or not knowingly be part of the laundering scheme, and it is these which ultimately prove to be the interface between the criminal and the financial sector
Move: clearly explains that the money launderer uses transfers, sales and purchase of assets, and changes the shape and size of the lump of money so as to obfuscate the trail between money and crime or money and criminal.
Invest: the criminal spends the money: he/she may invest it in assets, or in his/her lifestyle.
CONTINUED...
http://www.answers.com/topic/money-laundering
The great journalist Lucy Komisar has shone a big light on the subject:
Offshore Banking
The U.S.A.s Secret Threat
Lucy Komisar
The Blacklisted Journalist
June 1, 2003
EXCERPT
In 1932, mobster Meyer Lansky took money from New Orleans slot machines and shifted it to accounts overseas. The Swiss secrecy law two years later assured him of G-man-proof banking. Later, he bought a Swiss bank and for years deposited his Havana casino take in Miami accounts, then wired the funds to Switzerland via a network of shell and holding companies and offshore accounts, some of them in banks whose officials knew very well they were working for criminals. By the 1950s, Lansky was using the system for cash from the heroin trade.
Today, offshore is where most of the world's drug money is laundered, estimated at up to $500 billion a year, more than the total income of the world's poorest 20 percent. Add the proceeds of tax evasion and the figure skyrockets to $1 trillion. Another few hundred billion come from fraud and corruption.
Lansky laundered money so he could pay taxes and legitimate his spoils. About half the users of offshore have opposite goals. As hotel owner and tax cheat Leona Helmsley said---according to her former housekeeper during Helmsley's trial for tax evasion---"Only the little people pay taxes." Rich individuals and corporations avoid taxes through complex, accountant-aided schemes that routinely use offshore accounts and companies to hide income and manufacture deductions.
The impact is massive. The IRS estimates that taxpayers fail to pay in excess of $100 billion in taxes annually due on income from legal sources. The General Accounting Office says that American wage-earners report 97 percent of their wages, while self-employed persons report just 11 percent of theirs. Each year between 1989 and 1995, a majority of corporations, both foreign- and U.S.-controlled, paid no U.S. income tax. European governments are fighting the same problem. The situation is even worse in developing countries.
The issue surfaces in the press when an accounting scam is so outrageous that it strains credulity. Take the case of Stanley Works, which announced a "move" of its headquarters-on paper-from New Britain, Connecticut, to Bermuda and of its imaginary management to Barbados. Though its building and staff would actually stay put, manufacturing hammers and wrenches, Stanley Works would no longer pay taxes on profits from international trade. The Securities and Exchange Commission, run by Harvey Pitt---an attorney who for more than twenty years represented the top accounting and Wall Street firms he was regulating---accepted the pretense as legal.
"The whole business is a sham," fumed New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who more than any other U.S. law enforcer has attacked the offshore system. "The headquarters will be in a country where that company is not permitted to do business. They're saying a company is managed in Barbados when there's one meeting there a year. In the prospectus, they say legally controlled and managed in Barbados. If they took out the word legally, it would be a fraud. But Barbadian law says it's legal, so it's legal." The conceit apparently also persuaded the Securities and Exchange Commission.
CONTINUED
http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/column92e.html
Socialize the risk for Wall Street. Privatize the loss to Uncle Sams nieces and nephews. Congratulations, Dear Reader! Now you know as much as Phil Gramm.
The Diversion
Still, a global financial meltdown sounds like something bad. Making things worse, were hearing that Uncle Sam is broke! Flat busted. Tapped out.
Thats odd, though. We the People see the Treasury being emptied with tax breaks for the wealthy and checks to the companies they own that make money off of war. Want to know how to make a buck these days? Invest in the likes of Halliburton and Northrup Grumman. Anything in the warmongering business connected to Bush and his cronies will weather the downturn or depression.
The Wall Street Journal -- a paper owned and operated by Fox News head, Rupert Murdoch was very quick to promote the crisis, as DUer JustPlainKathy observed. The paper was even faster to pounce on a solution: Whats needed is a safety net for banks. And quick as a wink, they found the answer!
Only the U.S. taxpayer has the wherewithal to prevent the collapse of the global financial system -- a global economic meltdown that would freeze up credit and investment and expansion and prosperity and a return to the Great Depression. Who can be against that?
Oh. Kay. Sounds about right Rupert the Alien agreeing with what Leona Helmsley said: Only the little people pay taxes.
Gramm and McCain also are in favor of privatization. How nice is that?
The Getaway
George Walker Bush and his right-wing pals feel they can get away with this, their latest rip-off the American taxpayers. Who can blame them? When compared to their clear record of incompetence, lies, fraud, theft, mass-murder, warmongering and treason, whats a few trillion dollar rip-off?
Still, it's weird how they act.
They must really think theyll be welcomed with open arms in Paraguay and Dubai and Switzerland.
Going by the welcome the world gave the Shah of Iran, theyre in for a big surprise.
The FBI Guy
Dont say we werent warned. An intrepid FBI agent with something sorely lacking in the rest of the Bush administration, integrity, blew the whistle on the bank thing
FBI saw threat of mortgage crisis
A top official warned of widening loan fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere.
By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 25, 2008
WASHINGTON Long before the mortgage crisis began rocking Main Street and Wall Street, a top FBI official made a chilling, if little-noticed, prediction: The booming mortgage business, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, was starting to attract shady operators and billions in losses were possible.
"It has the potential to be an epidemic," Chris Swecker, the FBI official in charge of criminal investigations, told reporters in September 2004. But, he added reassuringly, the FBI was on the case. "We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis," he said.
Today, the damage from the global mortgage meltdown has more than matched that of the savings-and-loan bailouts of the 1980s and early 1990s. By some estimates, it has made that costly debacle look like chump change. But it's also clear that the FBI failed to avert a problem it had accurately forecast.
Banks and brokerages have written down more than $300 billion of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments in the last year or so as homeowner defaults leaped and weakness in the real estate market spread.
SNIP
Most observers have declared the mess a gross failure of regulation. To be sure, in the run-up to the crisis, market-oriented federal regulators bragged about their hands-off treatment of banks and other savings institutions and their executives. But it wasn't just regulators who were looking the other way. The FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, are supposed to act as the cops on the beat for potentially illegal activities by bankers and others. But they were focused on national security and other priorities, and paid scant attention to white-collar crimes that may have contributed to the lending and securities debacle.
Now that the problems are out in the open, the government's response strikes some veteran regulators as too little, too late.
Swecker, who retired from the FBI in 2006, declined to comment for this article.
But sources familiar with the FBI budget process, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the growing fraud problem, say that he and other FBI criminal investigators sought additional assistance to take on the mortgage scoundrels.
They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.
CONTINUED
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgagefraud25-2008aug25,0,6946937.story
We were warned and nothing happened.
Repeat: And nothing happened.
They must think We the People are really stupid. Are we supposed to believe that all that $700 billion in bad debt just happened? Where did all that money go? Who got all the money?
Meyer Lansky moved the Mafias money from the Cuban casinos to Switzerland. He did so by buying a bank in Miami. Phil Gramm seems to have done the same thing as vice-chairman of UBS, except the amounts are in the billions.
Who cares? Hes almost gone? Nope. That money still exists somewhere. I have a pretty good idea of where it might be. And George Bush and his cronies are poised to get away with a whole lot of loot.
Who Should Pay for the Bailout
If you are fortunate enough to be one, good luck American taxpayer! Youre in for a royal fleecing. Once the interest is figured into the bailout, were looking at a couple of trill.
The people who should pay for the bailout arent the American people. That distinction should go to the crooks who stole it -- friends of Gramm like John McCain and George Bush and the rest of the Raygunomix crowd of snake-oil salesmen. For them, the Bush administration -- and a good chunk of time since Ronald Reagan -- has not been a disaster. Its been a cash cow.
The above was posted on DU on Sept. 21, 2008. (Check out the responses, lots of info from DUers.) What's changed since then? Nothing near what I'd hoped for, certainly.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4055207
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Remember that one?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Speaking of Phil Gramm, his UBS Vice Chairman home page separates the punters from the players.
It's a Buy-Partisan Who's Who:
President William J. Clinton
President George W. Bush
Robert J. McCann
James Carville
John V. Miller
Paula D. Polito
Anthony Roth
Mike Ryan
John Savercool
SOURCE: http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html
One of my attorney chums doesn't like to see his name on any committees, event letterhead or political campaign literature. These folks, it seems to me, are past caring.
Some of why DUers and ALL voters should care about Phil Gramm.
The fact the nation's "news media" don't should also be of great concern.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Just shows this generalized Wall Street hatred is senseless. If we hadn't bailed out huge business, huge businesses failing would have resulted in even more unemployment.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has published a new book, Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street. It presents a damning indictment of the Obama administrations execution of the TARP program generally, and of HAMP in particular.
By delaying millions of foreclosures, HAMP gave bailed-out banks more time to absorb housing-related losses while other parts of Obamas bailout plan repaired holes in the banks balance sheets. According to Barofsky, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner even had a term for it. HAMP borrowers would foam the runway for the distressed banks looking for a safe landing. It is nice to know what Geithner really thinks of those Americans who were busy losing their homes in hard times.
CONTINUED w VIDEO and links and more letters...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/video-geithner-sacrificed-homeowners-to-foam-the-runway-for-the-banks/article/2502982
treestar
(82,383 posts)There is the mortgage relief act, there was the Rebuilding America Act, all kinds of things to help the little guy through it. So they should have gone ahead and foreclosed? Then you'd be saying they let people out homeless.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And the mortgage relief, where people could stay in their houses.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And the money to help them went unused.
Rex
(65,616 posts)All they care about is MONEY. I don't know how they sleep at night.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If there's nothing that will change their mind: too bad, so sad. And that's the end of the conversation.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Or would have happened to fewer people?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)What Bush and Congress -- including both major parties' presidential candidates -- did was to have the People bail out the Banksters who stole the money.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Compared to those actually responsible? Unemployment benefits? And no one went to jail? They just collected their huge bonuses.
Rex
(65,616 posts)those facts and pretend everyone is okay!
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's the issue here.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)from the Government. Not only that there were EXACTLY ZERO convictions for those responsible for several of the largest systemic fraud cases in world history.
Meanwhile we are killing thousands of innocent people in drone attacks on the mere suspicion that there might be a "terrorist" near by.
And meanwhile are prisons are filled with people who can't pay traffic fines or get caught smoking a joint.
What the fuck do you think happens when the middle class continue to get pissed on by the gilded elite in Washington who snap to attention when Jamie Fucking Dimon calls and demands that they weaken regulations on JP Morgan?
Do you think this shit is helping us? Really? You are that far right wing and out of touch?
EVERYTHING Wall Street wants, they get.
Unlike working families who just get fucked over by the conservatives in BOTH parties.
I don't think people have a problem with the bail out. They have a problem with the fact that there was ZERO accountability, record bonuses were paid using that money, and the consolidation that resulted has created an even bigger systemic risk than the existed before the banks ripped us off.
treestar
(82,383 posts)would have been lower?
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)History repeats itself. Banks know that the tax base is a slush fund to be used at their own discretion.
As far as bailouts? Don't be ridiculous. Another false choice. You think there are only two choices - give the crooked rich what they want, or give them nothing.
1. Federal receivership should have been THE first thing that was done. From there start figuring out the cash needed to stabilize things.
The order of the next events is debatable, the necessity of them is not.
2. Every executive staff fired and charges filed against them. Those fuckers only have the knowledge of the most corrupt deals on the books. The other shit is handled by low level staff. They would not be missed.
3. Unwind the books.
4. Fire every last manager at SEC.
5. Open hiring for accounting forensics division. Offer incentives for the best and brightest.
Perhaps we all need to feel the consequences of electing BAD politicians to office who only look after the rich.
A little pain for would help voters understand that there are consequences for their own bad decisions.
We aren't children.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And if they were too big to fail, why did we let them get even bigger since then? That's not very smart is it?
Why do you defend Wall Street?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)What did he say? Something to the effect, "Mr. President we shouldn't have to pay for these people that took out loans knowing they could never pay."
All staged. All a ruse. It was on every channel. Not a peep about the responsibility of the Wall Street criminals.
The USA could have paid off every delinquent mortgage and been money ahead. Way ahead. Instead the USA bailed out the malefactors and paid them a bonus.
ann---
(1,933 posts)different from Obama? The closer he gets to leaving office, the less he resembles a Democrat. Sorry I voted for him the second time - really - should have skipped that election.
QC
(26,371 posts)Pay no mind to the flies and stench!
polichick
(37,152 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)There's another post linking to an article by Joseph Stiglitz explaining the details of why TPP will lead to something like a nuclear winter for the US.
I guess Obama saw how spectacularly the Clintons cashed in for the services they rendered to the plutocracy and wants some of tht action for his post-presidential days. What the plutocrats want, the plutocrats get.
Fucking disgusting.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)a candidate who cares that much about the citizens in their own country? We seem to take care of Asia pretty damn well.
840high
(17,196 posts)life will be very comfortable.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Phil Gramm's Wealth Management division, especially:
http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html
840high
(17,196 posts)will see Obama's name added.
President William J. Clinton
President George W. Bush
Robert J. McCann
James Carville
John V. Miller
Paula D. Polito
Anthony Roth
Mike Ryan
John Savercool
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)His filthy wife was on the board.
Yes, I have hatred. I hate Fascists.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Absolutely, Enthusiast. A bankster's salary won't diminish the fact Phil Gramm and his wife slave for fascists and traitors.
From DU1:
Phil Gramm loves moving money offshore. It must run in the family -- The Bush Crime Family. So...
Guess who ties ENRON to BCCI?
Wendy Gramm! Yes, the wonderful wife of that smooth-talking ex-Senator and fun-loving deregulator, Phil Gramm. Holy smokes!
CAPCOM
Introduction
In the entire BCCI affair, perhaps no entity is more mysterious and yet more central to BCCI's collapse and criminality than Capcom, a London and Chicago based commodities futures firm which operated between 1984 and 1988. Capcom is vital to understanding BCCI because BCCI's top management and most important Saudi shareholders were involved with the firm. Moreover, Capcom moved huge amounts of money -- billions of dollars -- which passed through the future's markets in a largely anonymous fashion.
Capcom was created by the former head of BCCI's Treasury Department, Ziauddin Ali Akbar, who capitalized it with funds from BCCI and BCCI customers. The company was staffed, primarily, by former BCCI bankers, many of whom had worked with Akbar in Oman and few of whom had any experience in the commodities markets. The major investors in the company were almost exclusively Saudi and were largely controlled by Sheik AR Khalil, the chief of Saudi intelligence. Additionally, the company employed many of the same practices as BCCI, especially the use of nominees and front companies to disguise ownership and the movement of money. Four Americans, Larry Romrell, Robert Magness, Kerry Fox and Robert Powell -- none of whom had any experience or expertise in the commodities markets -- played important and varied roles as frontmen.
While the Subcommittee has been able to piece together the history of Capcom and can point to many unusual and even criminal acts committed by the firm, it still has not been able to determine satisfactorily the reason Capcom was created and the purposes it served for the various parties connected to the BCCI scandal. It appears from the available evidence that Akbar, BCCI, and the Saudis all may have pursued different goals through Capcom, including:
-- misappropriation of BCCI assets for personal enrichment.
-- laundering billions of dollars from the Middle East to the US and other parts of the world.
-- siphoning off assets from BCCI to create a safe haven for them outside of the official BCCI empire.
SNIP...
Despite suspicions about highly unusual transactions, CFTC Chairperson Wendy Gramm told the Subcommittee:
In terms of finding trading violations or Commodity Exchange Act violations that perhaps could support money laundering, we did not find any discernible pattern...o one has ben able to --at least other law enforcement officials have not been able to find money laundering in Capcom US, to our knowledge, as of now.(133)
Money laundering, as Chairperson Gramm testified, is not even a violation of the Commodities Futures Trading Act. Incredibly, it appears that the CFTC and the self-regulatory organizations have never even made a criminal referral for possible money laundering:
Senator Kerry. ave you ever specifically referred, or have any of the exchanges ever made a criminal referral for money laundering?
Dr. Gramm. We have raised concerns.
Senator Kerry. Have you made a criminal referral for money laundering?
Dr. Gramm. No. Not-- not specifically in that regard...
CONTINUED...
http://fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/21capcom.htm
Can't access the Original Thread, way back on Old DU any more:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7548&forum=DCForumID70&archive=
That doesn't matter as much as stating the facts and showing Who's Who in America's Rogue Gallery.
2banon
(7,321 posts)indictments. I remember the photo image of him in his office sitting at his desk and looking up at someone in the room laying down the order to shut it down, but I don't remember the image or name of that person..
Thanks for highlight this factoid linking to America's Rogue Gallery. :h:
On Edit, Suddenly the image of Dodd surfaces in my memory.. but I must be wrong. (?)
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)ambitions
n2doc
(47,953 posts)http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/16/as-free-trade-pacts-expand-u-s-trade-deficit-soars-why-add-one-more/
AND there is another major "free trade" deal also in the works
TTIP
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/18/us-trade-protests-germany-idUSKBN0N90LO20150418
pampango
(24,692 posts)The tea party doesn't just disagree with Obama on particular policies, they view him as a traitor to Americans.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)So it will get the same votes plus the rest of the Third Way/Wall Street puppet Dems. And Obama's proud signature.
BTW There is no reason trade treaties need to be negotiated in secret. Peace treaties the parties are by definition adversarial and secrecy seems appropriate. But trade treaties... all parties negotiating are on the same page i.e. maximizing corporate power and profits. But to our "elected" Reps, it's far more important to demand Congress amend & jeopardize a peace agreement with Iran than to vote against fast tracking TPP and exercise the right to amend this corporate surrender of our national rights.
Americans want fair trade not free trade.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)All the Isis shit is probably an elaborate ruse anyway. Just another smoke screen.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,157 posts)all secrecy was supposed to be forgiven.
But in a way, it makes sense, if you think of the TPP as a peace treaty between Goldman Sachs and their ilk with the rest of the world. And if we're really nice and completely surrender, maybe they won't try to tank the world economy again.
The final loose ends are probably whose picture goes on the new dollar bill to replace George Washington -- Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, or Larry Summers.
Initech
(100,040 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Why? Why is he pushing this? There's got to be some background reason I don't understand. As Heinlein said (or perhaps a character of his, I don't remember), "When someone asks, 'Why don't [or do] they.....?"'the answer is always 'money.'" I'd just like to know exactly whose and in what form.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)they keep increasing the number of H1B visas and signing trade deals that ship jobs overseas, and decrease American wages.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)....That it's lack of education is the reason for these visas or labor arbitrage overseas. They want you to bark up that tree. Thus distracted, they'll hope you'll / we'll not notice they're just handing the keys to the world to corporations.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)molecular biology, not that that will necessarily protect me, but I just bet due to H1B visas and the TPP, bioengeneering jobs will be harder to come by and have lower wages.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)And some people here love it too for dog knows what reason.
dflprincess
(28,072 posts)would be the first clue that something is very, very wrong with it.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)or that maybe i should vote R?
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)There is this from an article by Joshua Meltzer.
In 2011, the TPP countries had a total GDP of $17.8 trillion, of which almost 85 percent comprised the U.S. economy (see table 1 below). U.S. exports to current TPP members were worth approximately $105 billion in 2011, and imports were valued at $91 billion, meaning that the U.S. had a trade surplus with current TPP member economies of almost $14 billion (see Table 2 below). These trade flows represent approximately 5 percent of total U.S. trade.
It's the only trade partner area in the world where we have a trade advantage. If we don't participate the void will be filled by other countries and that will leave us out in the cold.
I am not saying there won't be a down side but since we don't actually know what is going on how can so many seem to know what is and what isn't good about TPP, and I don't believe president Obama is out to screw the country.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)or...just quit trading with Asia? If we don't do these trade deals there will be a rush by other nations to fill the void.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)As for worry about who will fill the void: If another country wants to set up shop by offshoring their own industry there; well, better them than us.
"Doing a deal" is just basically labor arbitrage by corporations.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)and you want to stop?
Do you actually think outsourcing is going to ever stop? You are living in la la land.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)At least you're honest. Most corporate shills try to deny or the ill effects: You seem to embrace them. You seem to believe "trade", as such, and in any and every broad broad and abstract sense sense justifies itself.
No bunky, it is you who lives in la la land.
Go back to your handlers for more talking points.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)may not result in a GDP change. But it screws the country. And that's EXACTLY what has happened with our "recovery". From the bean counter's abstract perspective, how the economy is fueled is not important as long as it is being fueled.
With existing trade agreements, wealth has been reconstituted into the hands of a very small minority. Lack of wealth and purchasing power to drive growth from the US middle class has been made up for by lower wages and higher productivity by the middle class and below.
But we are getting burned out. Data shows productivity may have reach its maximum. Growth based on wage, benefit and staffing cuts may be at an end. So there is intense pressure to make up the difference in places like Vietnam.
Productivity is absolutely correlated with quality of life (short of enslavement and violent force).
But CEOs are never going to yield on that point. They are good at taking, not so good at giving.