I've had it with 22 years of trade promises. This is for all you TPP cheerleaders.

[Elwood P Dowd]

How many times do we have to get our ass kicked by the same promises packaged in a shiny new acronym.

[99th_Monkey]

1. Fool me once ..

[Elwood P Dowd]

7. And then there is this....

[NaturalHigh]

15. Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of.

[neverforget]

2. And with Republicans in Congress and the US Chamber of Commerce as allies, what

makes them think this time will be different?

[Elwood P Dowd]

3. It won't. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whats about to happen with this bomb. (nm)

[merrily]

4. Trust.

Apparently, politics is a religion.

[JEB]

5. The "Free Traders" had their chances

and us workers took it in the shorts. I ain't playing.

[RobertEarl]

6. For years this has been in the works

American workers have enjoyed higher wages. Higher wages cuts into profits.

Being able to cut wage costs has long been a goal of businesses, and trade deals enable businesses to hire cheaper labor.

That's why only big businesses are for these trade deals.

[hifiguy]

48. Bingo.

Point, set and match.

[Skittles]

8. they aren't TPP cheerleaders

they are Obama cheerleaders - they agree with ANYTHING he likes; critical thinking skills are NOT required

[Fuddnik]

10. Exactly what's killing the party.

Justify ANY bullshit as long as it's our bullshit.

[Skittles]

13. BUT WHAT IF IT WAS PRESIDENT MCCAIN OR PRESIDENT ROMNEY

that is a sample

OMG it makes me cringe

[hifiguy]

49. They are as Jerry Seinfeld once put it, rooting for laundry

i.e. the label. The policies inside no longer mean anything to these blind cheerleaders.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Obama is always right

If you don't like the government spying on you, at least while Obama is president, then you must be a racist.

If you don't think the TPP is a good idea, then you must be a right winger.

Obama is always right.

Or, in the original Italian, Il Duce ha sempre ragione.

[Scootaloo]

12. I noticed this scary trend in August-September of 2013

Five points to whoever can name the situation I refer to...

[SMC22307]

23. The Pep Squad cheering on Obama's call to bomb Syria?

Amiright?!

[Aerows]

28. NSA

It's fine when "our" side does it.

[romanic]

14. You nailed it.

I support Obama wholeheartedly, but that doesn't mean I agree with every single thing or law or word he says. The TPP is going to be the NAFTA of his presidency if it passes and I pray it doesn't pass at all. *sighs*

[bigwillq]

22. Yup.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. ^THIS

[SomethingFishy]

65. I noticed that the mantra they always use "Wait and see"

doesn't apply to Bernie Sanders getting in the race.

Don't like the TPP? Wait and See. Afraid there won't be a public option? Wait and see. Think Rahm didn't deserve the appointment? "Wait and see".

Bernie gets in the race and it's "he can't win, he's a socialist, he has no money, people don't like him... Yeah? How about you WAIT AND SEE!

[Skittles]

67. that logic will go straight over their heads

remember, they suffer from lack of critical thinking skills

[SoapBox]

9. I absolutely agree with your post Elwood!

[kentuck]

16. Over and over and over again...

Experience does not matter...

[pampango]

17. I'm tired of all international agreements. There is no such thing as a "good" agreement.

Stop trying to negotiate "good" agreements. This Democratic obsession with "multilateralism" and "diplomatic negotiations" is for weaklings ans losers.

Let's stop negotiating issues with other countries and solve things using "other means". Negotiations are for small, weak counties. The U.S. is big and strong (I didn't say "exceptional&quot and can solve our problems unilaterally. We should tell other countries what we are going to do and just do it. (We can skip the "tell them" step when necessary.)

When we negotiate, we lose. Stop negotiating and act. 😉

[eridani]

19. The only good trade agreement is one that deals with tariffs and nothing else n/t

[pampango]

20. So if NAFTA just eliminated tariffs with Mexico and Canada that would be OK. No need for

anything on labor rights, environmental standards, etc.? That's an interesting progressive perspective. Others have argued that NAFTA was flawed because it did not deal with these other issues.

[bvar22]

21. NO.

Re-negotiate each Trade Agreement on a bi-lateral basis, protecting American Jobs, Human Rights and the Environment.
Produce and International Bill of Rights for EVERY worker in the World.
Then put MUSCLE and Crippling Fines in place for those who don't obey the law.

[pampango]

25. Sounds like we agree that "The only good trade agreement is one that deals with tariffs and nothing

else" is not a good idea.

I don't have a problem with multilateral organizations or agreements that protect the jobs and rights of every worker in the world. And there must be effective enforcement mechanisms for those who do not obey them.

[bvar22]

26. How do WE get effective enforcement mechanisms

when the TPP has tribunal courts HIGHER than mere international boundaries,
and the World's 1% will be adjudicating these cases.

You DO see the problem?
Yes?

[pampango]

27. I agree that effective enforcement clashes with national sovereignty.

How do you enforce labor rights or environmental standards as part of any agreement (TPP or any other) if every country has the right to ignore the those standards in the name of national sovereignty. And who comprises these tribunals is as critical as who sits on juries in criminal cases or who sits on the Supreme Court. The best idea is worthless if if it is not implemented fairly.

[bvar22]

46. Simple.

If our trade treaties are negotiated on a bi-lateral basis, we deal with that specific country how ever we wish;
from stopping all trade,
to tariffs,
to flooding their local markets
.... without having to get the approval of a secret tribunal composed of representatives from the largest Global Corporations.

[pampango]

47. What happens when a treaty's labor or environmental standard is allegedly violated by the US?

Does the case get resolved in Tokyo or Brussels? Or does the US get to handle all cases all the time because we are exceptional?

If the we agree to a trade deal with the EU that includes high labor and environmental standards similar to what they currently have (and we certainly don't have), how do they force us to live up to our commitment? If a company in Alabama violates the treaty's labor standard by mistreating a union or pollutes in a way inconsistent with the agreement, will the case be resolved a court in Alabama or in Brussels? Who determines whether the company violated the agreement? How is the penalty enforced?

Or if we work out a trade treaty with Japan that has high environmental standards and they have a nuclear plant that pollutes excessively. Does the case get adjudicated by a court in Japan or does the US have jurisdiction due to the treaty? Reverse the scenario and say an American company carelessly drills for oil and pollutes the ocean because it did not follow agreed to environmental procedures in doing so and Japan files a case under the treaty. Does it get heard in the US or does Japan have jurisdiction?

If the country where the violation allegedly occurred always has jurisdiction, then we are all relying on each country to fairly judge their own companies guilty when that is the case and penalize them. There may be countries in which we suspect that the hearing process would not be fair and objective.

[bvar22]

53. If they refuse to abide by the treaty,

no soup for them.

[pampango]

54. Who decides if a country "refuses to abide by the treaty"? And who polices the soup denial?

The world's policeman?

[Recursion]

45. TPP is the same judicial framework as the bilateral agreements it's replacing

Namely, the "defendant" country's own courts.

Before you sneer, AFL has won 9 out of 10 cases it has brought against other countries under NAFTA and CAFTA.

[eridani]

32. The problem is investors having more rights than the 99%.

Leave those sections out, and you don't need special protections for labor or the environment. That is only necessary if you insist on sticking investors into the picture. A treaty strictly about tariffs doesn't do that.

[Recursion]

44. What?

Leave those sections out, and you don't need special protections for labor or the environment.

The reason we don't have a free trade agreement with China (and probably won't in our lifetimes) is because we currently can (and do) use tariffs to take away some of their ability to undercut American workers by underpaying theirs, or to externalize costs by using dirty production methods.

[Recursion]

43. Seriously? You don't want labor protections in free trade agreements?

What about environmental protections? Are you against AFL/CIO being able to sue foreign governments for violating NAFTA's labor standards?

[eridani]

55. Love to have them if them meant something

Unfortunately, they don't.

[cali]

18. thanks

And just look at all the new members here who are in full throated support

[Progressive dog]

29. They didn't promise you a rose garden

I don't see how anyone could think that the US should not trade with other countries. Exactly how do they think we should accomplish this? They cannot honestly believe we will be better off economically if we isolate ourselves from trade.
The US dollar is the world's reserve currency. There is a reason for that.
The Chinese, the EU, the Russians, in fact, pretty much the whole world, will continue to trade if we don't.

[Elwood P Dowd]

30. Nobody said a damn thing about not trading with other countries.

Its the way the agreements are written to encourage exporting US jobs by the millions, driving down wages, and giving corporations the power to challenge state and federal laws and regulations. Secret trade tribunals made up of corporate lawyers meet in secret to settle disputes.

We have lost 8 trillion dollars in trade deficits the past 20 years and close to 10 trillion total. 50,000 US factories have been relocated to countries paying workers $1.00 to $5.00 an hour with zero benefits. Its not only a drag on economic growth (GDP), but it has contributed billions of dollars a year to the budget deficits -- millions of workers are no longer paying taxes or they are stuck with lower wage service jobs and pay fewer taxes. Plus, millions of workers that were formerly middle class are now bleeding the government with social safety needs such as unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, etc..

Its a race to the bottom, and if you can't figure out that flawed trade deals are a huge part of the problem, then you are just delusional, blind, or both.

NOTE: Those trillions of dollars in trade losses are no longer circulating in the US economy creating growth and jobs. That money is now circulating in foreign countries or parked in various banks around the world. The wages formerly paid US workers are no longer circulating in the US economy creating growth and jobs but circulating in foreign countries creating growth and jobs.

[Progressive dog]

31. You just don't want agreements with other countries

about trade. I got that. It seems to me that that is pretty much the same thing. Eighty percent of our trade deficit is with one country. You know, that Asian country that isn't part of TPP.
During that 20 years US GDP per capita grew more than 80% in the US. I'll bet we're even taking in more in taxes, not less as you claim. If you figure that it is a race to the bottom, it probably means that your figuring is in error.

[Elwood P Dowd]

33. GDP per capita grew and real wages fell like a rock for those in the middle

and below when real CPI numbers are used and not the laughable figures we get from the government and the economists. The percentage of US income and wealth belonging to the middle income and the poor has fallen dramatically the past 20 years. Almost all the wealth and income gains the past several years has gone to the richest 10%. Guess you missed all the income inequality discussions.

I never said anything about not wanting trade agreements and you know it. I'm against the flawed agreements written with the help of corporate lobbyists and designed to benefit corporate executives and Wall Street at the expense of American workers. These agreements also allow our trading partners to use tricks like VAT, import consumption taxes, and other clever ways to limit imports from the US. These agreements encourage corporations to close down US operations and move offshore to take advantage of super-low wages and Third World governments with lax or nonexistent labor and environmental laws.

Why don't you take a look at who supports TPP and who questions it. The biggest supporters are repuke politicians like Hatch, McConnell, Paul, Ryan along with repuke controlled front groups like CATO, Heritage, AFP, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.. Those questioning it are true progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and many, many more.

My figuring is not in error. Your propaganda and not paying attention to the gutting out of the middle class is what's in error. You don't sound like much of a progressive concerning working class Americans.

[Progressive dog]

36. So you know more about CPI than the economists?

That pretty much says it all.

[Elwood P Dowd]

41. You obviously know nothing about it.

The CPI from the BLS they use now does not include increases in the costs of food and energy, plus they have added all these substitution tricks that masks real world inflation. Its become a joke.

[Progressive dog]

77. So CPI does not include food or energy

according to you. HaHaHa

[eridani]

34. I don't want deals giving corporations the right to challenge governments in secret courts

TPP has fuckall to do with trade.

[Progressive dog]

37. The courts are so secret

that only you know about them?

[eridani]

42. They are not courts, but tribunals.

Their decisions override any government laws that corporations want to challenge.

[Hoyt]

52. Whew, you really need to read up on these tribunalsthat have been in over 2500 trade agreement since

1959.

[eridani]

56. Unelected tribunals that override elected governments are evil, period.

I don't give a flying fuck how long they have been around.

[Hoyt]

57. They don't override governments. Lots of judges in this country aren't elected either. Besides,

the 3 tribunal arbiters are elected/appointed -- one by the state, one by the company that thinks the trade agreement has been violated, and one by agreement between both parties.

And, that is after there is a hearing to see if the company even has a complaint subject to arbitration.

[eridani]

58. Even the possibility that tobacco companies could win a suit against a government--

--for putting health labels on cigarettes is a bad thing. Such suits have nothing to do with trade, and everything to do with corporations overriding elected governments.

[Hoyt]

59. I can sue you, doesn't mean I'm going to win. Phillip Morris isn't getting anywhere in their suit

and Australia hasn't changed their laws, and in the unlikely event they did, they still won't change the laws.

Corporations can't override government officials, despite what Sanders, Warren, and others playing politics say.

[eridani]

60. If they can't ovveride govenments, good. Scrap them entirely. n/t

[Hoyt]

61. Can settle a dispute when a country violates a trade agreement, helping countries attract

Last edited Sat May 2, 2015, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

investment and jobs.

[eridani]

62. Right--like the millions of jobs we've lost since NAFTA

Fuck NAFTA and all its successors.

[Hoyt]

63. Haven't lost millions of jobs due to NAFTA. Even if we had, Mexico can use them.

[eridani]

64. And Mexco is now losing jobs to China and Vietnam. Yay Race to the Bottom!!

Anyone who thinks that the Race to the Bottom is a good thing is an amoral sociopath

[Hoyt]

66. Foreign countries deserve a chance too. And Mexico is seeing jobs flow from China.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/18/manufacturing-mexico-china/1997883/

[eridani]

68. Well, that explains the huge flood of illegal immigration from Mexico after NAFTA

Trade agreements always suck for the 99% in all countries party to them.

http://bilaterals.org/?nafta-increased-mass-migration-to

After Mexico, the United States and Canada signed the FTA, in the agricultural sector alone five million workers lost their jobs in Mexico and they were forced to migrate.

Statistics published in a commentary that the New York El Diario/ El Prensa published, indicate that after these three countries signed these agreements, in Mexico alone 5 million jobs in the agricultural sector were eliminated. Friday 9 August, 2013.

The idea that the free trade agreements the White House had so encouraged were a time bomb for the Americans, is proved correct now: millions of undocumented immigrants are making a national campaign to regularize their situation.

Statistics published in a commentary published by the New York El Diario/La Prensa indicate that after these three countries signed these agreements, in Mexico alone 5 million jobs in the agricultural sector were eliminated.
People had to emigrate to the north to be able to feed their families, pointed out the leading Spanish newspaper from the city of skyscrapers. It also noted that this massive influx provo

[Hoyt]

69. Yeah, Mexicans who were making 50 cents a day, can now make $ 8 an hour working

for auto companies.

[eridani]

70. Or more likely, gardening and cooking under the table

Fuck corporations who profit from cheap labor.

[Hoyt]

71. How about American Nationalists who want to deny them a chance for

a better job,, not to mention protections written in the TPP.

We've taken more than our fair share of the world's wealth and resources, even stolen land from Mrxico.

[eridani]

72. If they want better jobs they should strike against their bosses

The TPP protections are just as worthless as the NAFTA protections--not enforceable or enforced. Isn't fighting for the 1% tiring?

[Hoyt]

74. Actually, you are the 1%ers to people in poor countries.

[eridani]

75. Why this idiotic pose that poor countries benefit from corporate trade agreements?

They don't--all gains from trade agreements go to the 1% in all involved countries.

[Hoyt]

76. No the poor gain, as does the country. And Obama's TPP will make it even better.

But the 99%ers here, become 1%ers when it's possible poor countries might get a little piece of the wealth.


And the TPP will likely require a minimum wage, right to unionize, safety protections, etc.. But folks will still be against it.

https://m.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/04/23/chart-week-how-trans-pacific-partnership-improves-nafta

[eridani]

79. What the poor will get is mass murder--the ones who can only afford generic drugs, that is

TPPs gift to big Pharma delays the availability of generics substantially.

[Progressive dog]

78. Courts are tribunals,

and US trade agreements are US laws. They can be changed easily by new US laws.

[bvar22]

35. Strawman ALert.

Please link to any post that states "the US should not trade with other countries."

Trade is NOT the problem.
Unrestricted trade with countries that have no Labor Rights, no Environmental Protections, and no Human Rights IS the problem.

[Progressive dog]

38. So all the countries in the TPP have

no labor rights, no environmental protections and no Human rights, according to you---and that's why we can't have trade agreements with them. But trade is not the problem. Good to know where you really stand. LOL

[bvar22]

39. Another Strawman Alert:

Lesson:
Almost every post that starts with "SO..."
and is followed by something NOBODY has said
IS a Strawman Logical Fallacy,
as your above postes so aptly demonstrates.


No Charge

[closeupready]

51. Of course. No point in bickering with that one.

Which (to me) is obvious. Cheers.

[Populist_Prole]

73. I noticed that too from the get-go

PD is full of shit. One strawman after another. Probably is holding the "build a wall around the US" as a desperation trump card once you've nearly KO-ed him/her.

[AzDar]

40. K & R

[closeupready]

50. I always liked the Naked Eyes' version:

But yeah, I get it. K&R