Wow. PLEASE READ. Last month the USTR released a document that illuminated US trade objectives

[cali]

File under things that slip by under the radar.

This isn't secret. It's NOT speculation. This is a document entitled "2015 Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers", and what the USTR considers barriers is shocking, disgusting and depraved. Yes. Depraved. Public Health measures, environmental laws; these and more are considered trade barriers by the U.S.

With Push For Trans-Pacific Partnership, U.S. Undermines Public Interest Policies Of Partner Nations

<snip>

In the more than 400 page long report, U.S. negotiators openly acknowledge goals that are odds with the Obama administration’s repeated assurances that TPP will not undermine the ability of pact members to regulate in the public interest.

<snip>

Among the highlights, food labeling policies: A new law in Peru, not yet finalized, that would mandate warning statements on prepackaged foods with excessive amounts of sugar, sodium and saturated fats; similar laws in Vietnam and in Mexico, the latter of which recently overtook the U.S. as the world’s most obese country; another law in Chile, approved though not yet in effect, that would require warning icons on foods that exceed specified thresholds in fat, calories, sugars and sodium. (The USTR warns as much as 80 percent of the U.S.'s $312.4 million in prepackaged food exports to Chile would be affected and bemoans the law’s restrictions on the use of unsubstantiated “health claims.”)

The USTR did not respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. also considers some newly approved environmental protections to be barriers. American trade officials single out a 2012 Vietnamese directive that banned the import of hazardous waste products including lead batteries, circuit boards, plastic waste and cooling devices with chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, ozone layer depleting gases that a universally-ratified United Nations treaty is in the process of phasing out. (The USTR says the banned imports are “potentially harmful to the environment.”) It also criticizes a new energy efficiency measure in Mexico for imposing “burdensome and costly labeling requirements for exports.”

In its report, the USTR also targets privacy regulations: A landmark Malaysian law that prevents companies from harvesting personal data without the individual’s consent is a trade barrier. As are policies in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia that require personal information in the custody of public officials to be stored and accessed only in Canada.

Much more:

http://www.ibtimes.com/push-trans-pacific-partnership-us-undermines-public-interest-policies-partner-nations-1931141

Here is a link to the USTR document

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2015%20NTE%20Combined.pdf

[GeorgeGist]

1. Hope and Change.

Like Bait and Switch, only worse.

[cali]

5. I'm reading that document now. It's nation by nation

I'm only on Australia. Lots of information about U.S. trade status with other countries. These purported trade barriers tell us a lot about our trade goals and make it pretty damned clear that the USTR is largely an arm of large corporations.

that the USTR actively seeks to undermine public interest laws and environmental laws in other countries, including small third world countries, is shameful

[JaneyVee]

68. Sorry, this isn't the nefarious text you think it is...

Just read most of it. All this document is doing is listing ways other countries try tilting trade agreements in their favor, against the US. And the only "arm" they're using to refute is scientific data, research, and evidence. Hardly intimidating. It's mostly a rebuke of foreign countries bullshit tactics of trying to puff up their exports while limiting imports. Trade manipulation and currency manipulation. This document only cites trade barriers and the only enforcement it proposes is the use of scientific data. I'll keep reading.

[arcane1]

2. And the small handful of ineffective defenders say...

"A landmark Malaysian law that prevents companies from harvesting personal data without the individual’s consent is a trade barrier. As are policies in the Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and British Columbia that require personal information in the custody of public officials to be stored and accessed only in Canada."


On this issue, Obama can go fuck himself. No support here!

[cali]

6. The USTR: Front for U.S. corporations.

Those corporate trade advisors sure do get what they want.

[imthevicar]

65. Time to drown the TPP (Toiler Paper Parley) in the Crapper.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Kick.

[pa28]

4. Originally, just the leaked chapters contradicted Obama's statements on public interest law.

Now it's the officially published trade objectives. Meanwhile, we're all supposed to just take his word over what we can see for ourselves in black and white.

[cali]

7. I don't want to be accused of misleading anyone- I used the phrase trade objectives

The document itself is what the USTR deems as trade barriers. But our trade objectives are illuminated by what we consider to be barriers.

[sabrina 1]

8. Thanks, will read it. But have already seen some of the cases against Countries who apparently have

some of those 'barriers' iow 'laws' in place. They don't stand a chance of winning such cases so long as they are conducted in Corporate Tribunals by Corporate Judges and lawyers. In one such case, the country finally agreed to 'relax' its laws to avoid any more expenditures trying to defend them.

And that appears to be goal. Monsanto eg, has failed to stop labeling laws in European nations, but if this passes, they can begin to sue those nations extracting huge amounts of money based on their claims of 'harm to their business'.

This must be stopped, though I'm not hopeful at this point. Unless it is stopped in the House.

[JDPriestly]

98. Samer here. Public Citizen lists the cases brought to the NAFTA court on its website.

Most of the cases are rejected on procedural grounds, but I suspect that the TPP is intended to change the procedures to allow more of those lawsuits through. I have the sense that the corporations claim speculative damages, that is damages based on speculation about what they could'a, would'a, should'a earned if only . . . . . .

Those kinds of damages should not be the basis for a lawsuit. A corporation is supposed to know the rules when planning its business investments. Earning money while FOLLOWING THE RULES set by the local government should be an accepted limitation for international businesses.

The TPP is just a corporate coup. The corporations that support it just don't want to play by democratically determined rules. CORPORATE COUP.

I am sorry, but I am suspicious of the motives of anyone who supports the TPP. It's just a loser all around.

[cali]

9. and where are the cheerleaders for the TPP and "free trade"?

this document undercuts the President's pious claims about the tpp being the most progressive trade agreement evah. Environmental laws a problem for U.S. corporations? Classify them as a trade barrier. And how dare other countries act in the best interests of their own citizens, when that could hamper sales of prepackaged food items high in fat, calories, sugar and salt? Peru wants to put a warning icon on those items? Unfair! Trade barrier!

Fuck Michael Froman. Fuck the USTR, front organization for U.S. corporations. Slimy Bullies.

[TBF]

95. They are drinking their mimosas - it's celebration time

and it's almost Memorial Day. People have vacations planned. It's time to wrap this up and go off on summer break:


Obama trade bill clears big Senate hurdle
By Burgess Everett
Updated 5/21/15 1:16 PM EDT

On life support as of early Thursday morning, President Barack Obama’s trade agenda has found new life.

In a dramatic vote critical to the future of the president’s goal of securing new trade deals with Pacific Rim and European countries, the Senate on Thursday broke a bipartisan filibuster of legislation to give the president fast-track authority to negotiate new trade deals.

The 62-38 vote preserves the possibility that the Senate can finish the trade bill before the Memorial Day recess, which would be a major boon to Obama and Republican leaders in the House and Senate. It came after a round of horse-trading that assures the Export-Import Bank will receive a chance at a lifeline to live past June 30, when it is scheduled to expire.

“It was a nice victory. We’re going to continue and finish up the bill this week,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-clears-senate-hurdle-118178.html#ixzz3anQIHULI

[msongs]

10. Obamanomics - we are all supposed to STFU because we are "wrong" nt

[cali]

11. Let's not.

Let's keep shouting about this shit.

[Scuba]

12. +1

[840high]

58. Like hell I will. Speak out people- email

everyone in DC.

[cali]

13. I know this isn't "sexy" or personality driven, but this is so revealing

even if it is in the form of a dry government report.

[WillyT]

14. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[cali]

15. You're welcom, Willy. Thanks for the kick. I'm on Brazil now

just found this nugget: (sorryit's formatted this way)

INVESTMENT BARRIERS
Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land
The National Land Reform and Settlement Institute (INCRA) administers the purchase and lease of
Brazilian agricultural land by foreigners. Under the a
pplicable rules, the area of agricultural land bought
or leased by foreigners cannot account for more than
25 percent of the overall land area in a given municipal
district. Additionally, no more than 10 percent of ag
ricultural land in any given municipal district may be
owned or leased by foreign nationals from the same
country. The rules also ma
ke it necessary to obtain
congressional approval before large plots of agricultura
l land can be purchased by foreign nationals, foreign
companies, or Brazilian companies with a majority of
foreign shareholders. On
February 26, 2014, Brazil’s
Attorney General issued Interminis
terial Directive 04/2014, which clarified the regulations applicable to
agricultural land sales to foreigners made between 1
994 and 2010 and legally protected such transactions
from court challenge.

[WillyT]

16. Great Work !!! - Keep 'Em Comin...

[JDPriestly]

100. Wish we had such a restriction.

Land should be owned for the most part by people who live within the country in which the land is located. Why? Because foreign landlords are less likely to have a stake in preserving the health of the people and environment in the country in which the land is located. That only makes sense. Why should a Saudi Arabian investor who does not live in Indiana (just an example out of the blue) care whether the people who will live in the apartment building his investment is paying to construct will have decent schools or clean air? As long as he makes out on the rents and brings in the money, all is fine for him. It's the American children who have to live in his housing who will pay the price for any corners the investor cuts or any social insensitivity the investor shows.

That law of Brazil makes a lot of sense to me.

[cali]

17. the deeper in the USTR report I dig, the more bizarre

and arbitrary these purported trade barriers seem.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. I can only imagine how much time you put into your information excavations.

Thanks again.

[bbgrunt]

19. thanks Cali. This is VERY revealing and must be exposed!

[cali]

23. it really is. I'm on Costa Rica now. The USTR really doesn't like

the Costa Rica Ministry of Health- or perhaps I should say U.S. cosmetics companies really don't like it.

[JDPriestly]

101. Thanks, Cali. My computer is so slow I can hardly open the document.

[ucrdem]

20. "How easy is a bush supposed a bear."

Theseus, Midsummer Night's Dream, 5.1.22. But I'm sure you've stumbled on the living heart of darkness . . .

[cali]

22. You got nothing.

scramble now. surely you can come up with some orwellian bull.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Thanks I think... I missed that

download and coffee up

[cali]

24. kick

[Michigan-Arizona]

25. K&R!!!!!!!!! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. This IS a joke

USTR continues to vigorously scrutinize foreign labor practices and to redress substandard practices that impinge on labor obligations in U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) and deny foreign workers their internationally recognized labor rights.

Should I direct the USTR to the events in places like San Quintin, Mexico?

Thanks, I thought I was going to be angry, but this actually has some dark humor in it.

[cali]

28. the bullshit out of the USTR is remarkable.

[questionseverything]

30. cali and nadine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026690881

the discussion in this thread about ruining japanese rice farmers, like nafta did to the mexican corn farmers is eye opening and heart breaking....not to mention it will drive up the price Americans pay for food since it is what we have to export

i am highlighting this because i think it is a part of the discussion regular folks can understand and might pay attention to

thanks for all you do

[think]

27. The more we learn about the TPP the more hideous it becomes..... /nt

[cantbeserious]

29. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[historylovr]

31. K & R

[Mnpaul]

32. This reminds me of the Summers memo

We should ship more jobs to these under polluted third world nations. We can dump tons of toxic waste and not feel bad about it because the residents of those countries will die from natural causes before they die from all our pollution.

[JDPriestly]

105. Dumping toxic wast. That's what free trade is really about, I suspect.

[MaggieD]

33. So, not a secret like I've been saying.

I must have posted a link to that 50 times while you guys kept claiming it was secret. Now you act like you discovered the moon. LMAO!

[neverforget]

34. It's not a link to the TPP.

[MaggieD]

35. Hint - there is MORE than enough info

At the USTR site for people to be well informed about the TPP. As I've been saying.

Makes no sense to complain it's secret if people won't even avail themselves of the myriad of info available.

[cali]

36. you have never posted a link to this document

Posting a link to the USTR's sprawling site is hardly the same thing

[MaggieD]

37. I've posted links to the pages with documents.

I believe your response was something along the order of "eff off."

[cali]

42. you posted tpp propaganda. you did not post

documents. And you realize how damming this document is, right?

[840high]

59. I don't read your links.

[JDPriestly]

106. How often? I don't think I ever saw one.

I can't open the document very well on my computer because I don't have a computer that good.

[neverforget]

38. Hint: it's secret. It's not available for the public to read.

[MaggieD]

39. Back to that canard?

So you won't look at the shit ton of info that IS available, but you want more (that you also won't read). Yeah, that makes sense (to no one).

[cali]

43. who to believe? you or Senators Boxer,Brown,Warren and other dems

as well as a senior USTR adviser?

[MaggieD]

44. Never believe any politician

They play politics. I already told you that.

[cali]

47. lol. but you insist repeatedly that

Hillary is to be believed. Your truthiness is like nothing Ive ever seen. It's worthy of being studied

[MaggieD]

49. I believe based on what they do, not what they say

The problem with you on Hillary is you refuse to look at her voting record, which would clearly prove 99% of what you say about her to be pure BS.

[BrotherIvan]

63. How did she vote on the IWR?

Or is that the other 1%

[Lagom]

64. when she was actually last in government service (as SoS), her official position on the TPP was...

http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm

So it's fair to say that our economies are entwined, and we need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.

The TPP can be called many things, but transparent, environmentally friendly, and a protective agreement for workers are not ones I would choose to link it with.

I hope she changes her stance, as if she helps put paid to this shambolic agreement, she has my full support for her actions.

[cui bono]

89. Then you should be believing Sen. Boxer.

Of course that doesn't work for you because it blows a hole in your 'story'.

[MaggieD]

93. Is she in jail and no one noticed?

LOL!

[cui bono]

102. Who said she was in jail? Surely you know what she said about notes, I mean you keep

posting about the TPP, pretty much asserting you are the authority on the subject.

[MaggieD]

110. Congress will be jailed if they talk about the TPP!

LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6664793

[cui bono]

115. That was not the post you responded to.

I guess you don't understand how a conversation works.

And now I see you linked to a post that proves my point about Boxer.

No wonder you are having so much difficulty on this subject. You should take a rest, you are going in circles and seem very confused.

Unless of course it is as you insinuated, that you are simply trolling. Why else are you devoting so much time to defend something you claim you don't agree with?

[MaggieD]

117. Isn't that the meme?

Sure it is. This over the top drama is why the extreme left is ignored by politicians. Sadly, those on the extreme left never seem to grasp that.

[cui bono]

121. Where did she disclose the details?

I saw you chastise someone for using the rofl smiley yet on every post lately you are using "LOL!" How is that any different?

Again, you linked to a post that has nothing to do with the arrest comment but that proves my point about what Boxer said.


So, I ask again, and this is the only thing I'm going to be asking you anymore...

Why are you posting about the TPP and defending it when you say you are against it? Why do you say you are not defending when all you do is argue with those who are against it? What is the point of your posting about it? What do you personally have to gain by having the TPP or just defending it?

At this point you really are just trolling when all you are doing is posting the same link to the same OP and putting "LOL!" in the body of your post.

[MaggieD]

124. According to you guys...

Your Republican hero Jeff Sessions did. Is he in jail?

[cui bono]

125. Where did I say that? Can you please provide me with a list of my heroes?

[MaggieD]

129. So you agree that the "they will be jailed" thing....

... is bullshit? Nice to know we agree on something.

[cui bono]

130. Nope. I posted the links.

You need to actually read what it says though.

[MaggieD]

132. How come Jeff Sessions isn't in jail then?

Are you really silly enough to think they are going to arrest a senator or congress person for that? LOL!

[cui bono]

133. Again, you have to actually read what the article says.

LOL!

[JDPriestly]

107. The TPP is a scumbag document. I judge from the reactions of those senators and representatives

that I trust that it is much worse than the stuff we can read on the Trade Rep's official website.

We need to see the language and specifics of the agreement. I am particularly interested in the provisions regarding the corporations' wet dream, that arbitration court all to themselves. I will only be please when I can read the actual agreement.

It's the court that I object to the most. It will put terrible financial pressure governments to settle claims that impose policies that are adverse to their people and to their economies. I want to see the text. Because only when I have seen the text of the TPP can I know for myself whether it is an agreement that will be good for the US.

We have a terrible balance of trade deficit. Our children and grandchildren and we ourselves will suffer and are suffering due to that deficit.

The TPP will only worsen our deficit. Of course, a few rich sociopaths will do quite well. But the rest of us -------?????? No.

[MaggieD]

109. I'm against it too

But I don't feel the need to inject the drama queen over the top accusations that some here like to post. Obama is not out to screw the American worker.

[JDPriestly]

113. Did it ever occur to you that maybe the accusations are based on on conjecture as are yours

but on knowledge of how the trade agreements work to the detriment of the US?

[MaggieD]

116. Yeah, Obama is Dr. Jeykl and Mr. Hyde

All of the sudden.

Uh, no, he isn't. He just has a different opinion on what is ultimately best for the American people. I will play devil's advocate for a minute. These points do not convince me, personally, because I have not seen any evidence that trade pact agreements are very enforceable. But here are a few things he says that make sense:

- China will write the rules if we do not write them. And that will not be good.
- Asian markets pirate a shit ton of US intellectual property and we would like their governments bound to stopping that. Microsoft employs nearly 100 thousand people, for instance. Piracy hurts their job prospects and their wages.
- Globalization of markets is not going away. There is no turning back the clock. Trade is going to happen regardless. A trade pact at least attempts to give us some advantages in that regard - such as leveling the playing field even though we cannot compete on wages.

I could go on but I won't. The main point is that people that believe the above and other issues to be true and valid reasons for signing this trade pact are not evil. They just have a different viewpoint.

[JDPriestly]

119. Your points, one by one.

"- China will write the rules if we do not write them. And that will not be good."

China already is writing the rules. It has a huge trade surplus very often. We have a huge trade deficit. There is no way to change that. China's potential economy is many, many times that of our country. We need a better strategy than the TPP offers if we are to be able to compete with China. In fact, we probably cannot compete with China and might be wisest to place a price on China's access to our very lucrative, easily accessible and uni-language market before it is too late.

"- Asian markets pirate a shit ton of US intellectual property and we would like their governments bound to stopping that. Microsoft employs nearly 100 thousand people, for instance. Piracy hurts their job prospects and their wages."

There is no way that the TPP can change that fact. It is highly unlikely that Asian governments can end the theft. I am quite sympathetic to the interests of creative people and companies that suffer from the stealing on the internet, but I don't think that enforcing patents and trademarks will work without stifling healthy competition and creativity and without encouraging violations of human and civil rights across the globe. So Berlioz stole the tune from Three Blind Mice or was it the other way around. Creative people build on what was created by others before them. That's how creativity works. We could refuse to buy goods from countries that don't respect our patent and copyright laws (the ones passed by our Congress since it is the job of Congress to pass them or create a means to pass them under Article I, section 8 of our Constitution). Refusing to buy from a country that does not respect our laws would, because we now have a very attractive, large and uni-language economy, be a better way to protect our patent and copyright laws than entering into yet another trade agreement that we comply with and others ignore.

"- Globalization of markets is not going away. There is no turning back the clock. Trade is going to happen regardless. A trade pact at least attempts to give us some advantages in that regard - such as leveling the playing field even though we cannot compete on wages. "

I agree. Trade is going to happen. So why another trade agreement?

We would be better off negotiating one-on-one trade agreements with countries that are willing to respect our democratically determined laws and respect the fact that we cannot enter into agreements that are incompatible with our Constitution. Even without reading the full text of the TPP, I can tell you that its terms are incompatible with our Constitution. Sorry . But I just happen to know that. I am not talking off the talk of my head like many you may encounter on the internet. I do know what I am talking about. We have a separation of powers that grants certain authority to Congress, other authority to the courts and still other authority to the executive branch. The TPP will override our separation of powers by grabbing some of Congress' powers and handing them over to the negotiators of the TPP and international courts.

Trade will happen. We should realize that our huge trade deficit is proof that granting other nations the ability, the license to import products into our country, into our economy in which it is so easy to sell things and in which buyers are so abundant is a big asset that we should not give away in the TPP agreement.

It is a lot of work, but we need to negotiate good trade agreements with each country if we want to have the most leverage and sell our products outside our borders.

[MaggieD]

120. Great, thanks - I am not in favor of the TPP

So you are preaching to the choir.

[cui bono]

126. A lot of people disagree with you.

[MaggieD]

127. Couldn't care less

[cui bono]

128. Couldn't tell that from all your posts defending his fight for the TPP and its secrecy.

[MaggieD]

131. Sorry - I don't even think about it....

Do you? Do you post only things you think everyone will agree with you on? I find that odd. Never even occurs to me to factor in whether people will agree with me or not.

[cui bono]

134. Doesn't answer what I asked at all.

But I expect as much from you.

What do you have to gain personally from defending the TPP/actions of Obama regarding the secrecy of the TPP?

[MaggieD]

135. Personal gain for me?

I want Democrats elected. I'm a liberal. Therefore I do not like BS posted about them that are essentially the equivalent of the right wing smear jobs they typically endure to go unchallenged.

I'm sorry - Obama is not an evil corrupt corporate overlord. You are welcome to think so. And I am welcome to call BS on it.

[cui bono]

136. Obama is a self-described moderate Republican. He is siding with the Cons on the TPP.

Why would you defend someone who doesn't have your back?

Let's get a real Democrat, and by that I mean someone who doesn't answer to big business, someone who is actually fighting for the people. Sen Bernie Sanders will do that.

Obama and Clinton are corporate shills. The record has shown it.

[MaggieD]

141. Oh come on - tell the truth

He didn't describe HIMSELF as a moderate republican. He was commenting on how right wing the republicans have become.

"During an interview with Noticias Univision 23, the network's Miami affiliate newscast, Obama pushed back against the accusation made in some corners of south Florida's Cuban-American and Venezuelan communities that he wants to instill a socialist economic system in the U.S. The president said he believes few actually believe that.

"I don't know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that," Obama said. "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican…."

He is a REAL Democrat. You are the outliers. Not the rest of us. DU is a bubble with a fringe majority. It's not the real world.

[cui bono]

145. No. He described HIMSELF as a moderate Republican. Happy to provide video:

Last edited Thu May 21, 2015, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

You posted the quote yourself:

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican…."

What the fuck do you think that means? That means his policies are moderate Republican. Doh!

You are right about the Con's shift to the extreme right, unfortunately the Dem Party/Leadership shifted right along with them and now we have a Dem Party that is center and a Con party that is extreme right. The REAL Democrats are still on the left though. The New/Corporate/Third Way Dems are center with Obama.

No REAL Democrat offers up SS cuts. Get real.

No REAL Democrat appoints banksters to the admin.

No REAL Democrat allows Shell to drill in the Arctic.

No REAL Democrat shuts out single-payer and adopts a conservative health plan.


I'm no outlier, most of the American public agrees with me more than anyone who supports corporate Dems. Glad you finally outed yourself as a pure Obama apologist. No wonder reason and facts don't work with you.

[840high]

60. Does that include Prez. Obama?

[MaggieD]

61. The phrase ANY politician would include....

Any politician. Watch what they do, not what they say.

[cui bono]

88. But believe random internet people.

Talk about lmao.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Tell that to every United States Senator

that has come out and told us it is SECRET... I think they are in a far better position to know than MaggieD on Democratic Underground. For that matter to my Congressman, who I think is in far better position to know than MaggieD.

They have also told us exactly how this level of secrecy is being maintained.

Now if you have been to the secret room, and read it, and have the necessary clearances and a memory from hell, why the hell are you spilling the beans here? You do know you could be prosecuted for doing that.

Or... perhaps, you are not privy and prefer to post links to the propaganda site where all is fine and we have farts and unicorns.

We are far from impressed. Now where is that vanilla ice-cream?

[MaggieD]

51. There you go, missing the point again

Is the full TPP at the USTR rep site? No. But what difference does that make when people refuse to even look at the mountain of info already available?

What, are you folks legal contract scholars or Nobel prize winning economists all of the sudden? When it does come out will you pledge to read it and provide a 20 page summary? Ah no, because you wouldn't understand the line by line details anyway.

Cali just told me there is TOO MUCH info to "wade" through there. I guess that's as good excuse for complaining about not enough info when you won't even look at the info that is there. Or something.

Of course now, "WOW" looks what's there!!! As if it's a big revelation or something. Whatever. It's just too funny at this point.

Carry on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Because the info does not reflect the reality of the treaty

there you go again missing the point, but with you this is a well practiced trope.

[MaggieD]

53. Hint: It's not your only source

Pro-tip: It's silly to ask for MORE information if you have zero interest in the mountain of info already available. And it is QUITE clear from the posts here that most people don't know jack BECAUSE they are too lazy to inform themselves.

My favorite is "Hillary WROTE the TPP!!!!"

LOL!

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Well she had a role in it

pro tip, it started during the BUSH administration, but these treaties go though several administrations.

Second pro tip, she did write in her memoirs that this treaty was the gold standard and as a SOS, she should know what are the major elements of it, since the USTR will keep her in the loop.

Third pro tip, no she did not quite write it, but the who's who of US Industry has it's paws in it. with delegates and lobbyists, why it does not bother you that the lobbyists from industry have MORE access than US Senators, is no longer a mystery to me.

There -------> go pick the pom poms

[lark]

73. Puzzling?

Why are your attacking HRC for Obama's bill? He (not she) is the one who hand picked all the corporate lobbyist to be trade reps. He's the one that didn't pick any union, labor or environment reps. to participate. Yes, I don't like that she was supporting this bill, but was it while she was SOS? Her job then was to support the Obama government. Has she come out and said she supports it now that she's not legally required to? Don't think so. And, I do want her to speak out on this, hopefully to damn it, but at least let us know her own true personal feelings about it.

However, I just don't understand all the HRC animus about this when so many are giving a pass to the one person more responsible for this job and environmental disaster - Obama.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. And Junior

Don't forget junior.

But you are telling me the Secretary of State, to be fair a few, had nothing to do with this?

At this point this is high comedy.

[lark]

148. Think you are amusing yourself

by ignoring who has the major responsibility for TPP. Hint - it isn't her.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. So a United States Ambasssador has more authority

than both the Secretary of State and the President? Now this is really amusing. And the USTR does NOT report to these two?

Thanks, we all learn something new every day of how the Government, according to Lark, runs. Things that would work in a work of history... Ambassadors had a lot more discretion in in the 18th and 19th century, it was a measure of communications, or fiction.

[lark]

150. OMG!

i said the president is responsible, where the hell did you get anything about the ambassador. I never even used that word in any of these related posts!


I've had enough of your hallucinations and bomb throwing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. So translation

I do not like it when I get pushback on the bullshit I am trying to push.

By the way, if you are going to talk trade, that is a FUNCTION of the US Department of State, which reports to the President, who free clue did NOT write the agreement either. That is done by the USTR.

At least try hard to learn how this shit ACTUALLY works.

[lark]

152. OK, can't resist.

Translation of yours,

rudeness, rudeness, lies and more lies defending other lies. Who appointed every single one of the negotatiators - Obama. Who picked corporate lobbyist for these positions - Obama. Who didn't allow any labor, union or environmental representation - Obama. Quit trying to lie your way out of the twisted maze you concocted out of hate. Quit with the false straw man agrument. I never said he wrote the trash, just that he's the person mainly responsible for it and is pushing it really hard. How do you explain that? Did HRC twist his arm? You'd think so based on your claims.

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. If you think we have a government run by a dictator that is your prerogative I suppose

The President still did not write this. Neither did Bush. Writing these agreements is well under their pay grade. For the record it is also under the pay grade of the US Secretary of State and all these posts, including the SOS are appointed by the Chief Executive and CONFIRMED by the United States Senate.

It is not my fault you do not know the most basic of how this shit actually works.

By the way, your mind reading abilities (full of hate) are quite broken. Brutally honest, I give two shits who gets elected since MY man\woman\it will win handily anyway, that be BIG MONEY.

One final thing Lark, she did write in her book after leaving State that this treaty was the gold standard. I s'pose the President forced her to write that line so he could get cover from the agreement he personally negotiated and wrote. This is quite a funny thing.

By the way, you are giving me material for fiction. Thanks.

By the way, this does not excuse either BUSH or OBAMA... but quit building sand castles.

[JDPriestly]

111. Wouldn't you like to know?

"What, are you folks legal contract scholars or Nobel prize winning economists all of the sudden? When it does come out will you pledge to read it and provide a 20 page summary? Ah no, because you wouldn't understand the line by line details anyway."

You assume a lot that you should not assume. Your question betrays the fact that you assume a lot about the people on DU that may be quite false.

I take it that you are not a legal scholar or a Nobel prize-winning economist and therefore you assume that no one else might be.

If you assume so much, maybe you are assuming things about the TPP that are incorrect.

Your overly broad assumption about we who post on DU makes me wonder whether your judgment is reliable and trustworthy.

Assuming that other people are just like ourselves is a big mistake we all often make in life. It is so obviously untrue. There are probably people on DU who are what you expect them to be: But there are also probably many who are way beyond what you think they are in terms of experience and knowledge.

Assuming much of anything without acknowledging that you are assuming it and not knowing it for a fact is a big mistake. People learn that as they gain more knowledge and more experience.

I'm sorry, but I question the methodology of your thinking and I hope everyone on DU takes the inadequacy of that methodology into account when considering your posts and statements.

I am constantly amazed at the expertise of many DU members. It is astounding at times. Don't assume things about the people on this website just because you disagree with them.

[MaggieD]

114. I have informed myself with info available....

... to be against it. So I do not need to pretend there is not enough info available. It is as simple as that.

Here is the chapter on "Investments" https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/

Anything in there that would help you know MORE than what is already known? Not unless you're a $900 per hour contract lawyer.

[neverforget]

46. Back to that canard? Claiming it's not secret yet not being able to link to the document.

[IMG][/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://gifsoup.com]GIFSoup[/URL]

[cali]

40. the ustr site is not a good resource for learning about the tpp

You have to sift through far too much propaganda

[MaggieD]

41. Yet now it is suddenly

Interesting.

ETA: the "wow" on your subject header was a really nice touch.

[cali]

48. keep up with your high test truthiness, Mags!

[MaggieD]

50. That's your "tell"

That laugh icon you love. Or when you break out the "cute" comeback.

You can't deny I told people (including you) that there was plenty of info at the USTR site. You also can't deny you did the laugh/cute bit every time I did. Nothing "truthie" about that sister. So spare me the "WOW - look what is at the USTR site!!!111!"

Be honest - you'd rather cut off your left arm than admit you are wrong.

[cali]

67. No tell. I genuinely find your schtick worthy of a laugh smilie- and

I was on my tablet, making it difficult to type out a full response.

Yes, YOU used the USTR to make the argument for the TPP- and you used blatant propaganda, of which there is, naturally an abundance.

Now, Mags, how about actually addressing the ISSUE brought to light in the USTR report; specifically that it designates public health and environmental laws as trade barriers.

[MaggieD]

69. I don't support the TPP

As I've told you about a million times now. But you need dragons to slay via a keyboard so I guess that's beside the point. Huh?

What I disagree with you on is the BS characterization of Democrats as if they were the devil incarnate.

But you know that.

[cali]

74. oh, bulloney. you defend it at every turn.

And it's not the dems that are for it- and you know that.

continue with your non-stop truthiness, Mags.

[MaggieD]

81. Link to that?

Find a post where I said I support the TPP. You won't because I don't.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

138. No one believes what you say anymore.

Had you not noticed that?

[MaggieD]

139. Aw, you say that to all the non-puretopians

Look, it's not like the fringe wasn't attacking the mainstream Democrats before I started posting. You all have been doing it for years. I guess it pisses some people off that I am not intimidated by posts like yours. Whatever.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

140. No, I reserved that comment just for you.

Once you develop a reputation for being dishonest, it's hard to change others' perceptions.

Your posts in this thread alone, with the slipping and sliding around the issue of the secrecy of TPP, show that you're not a Deion's person and that you're not an honest person. People remember that kind of thing.

[MaggieD]

142. Gosh, you mean I have to live with the horrible pain of....

... the fringe left not liking me? How shall I go on??!!?

Yeah. Do. Not. Care. Never have. Never will.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

143. No. You have to live with yourself.

Bye now.

[MaggieD]

144. Not a problem!

[cui bono]

90. Oh please, you are all over this board so much defending it I'm wondering if you are Obama.

[MaggieD]

91. Link to that?

Find a post where I said I support the TPP. You won't because I don't.

[cui bono]

103. Then why do you keep defending it?

What are you posting about it for? Why are you only arguing with those against it?

Are you admitting to trolling then?

[MaggieD]

108. I'm not defending it....

I am pushing back on the screeds that claim Obama is a corporate stooge of some sort because he would like a trade deal that sets a precedent for worker protections and other issues that are a problem with previous trade deals.

As I have said, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. I am one of the people that can reasonably disagree with Obama and others on this. I can't think of a single politician in my 30 plus years of paying attention to politics that I agree with on every single issue. I don't expect to. I'm not a puretopian. I live in the real world.

Obama has done some good things and some things I am not crazy about. But he does not have a mission to fuck over the American worker as some would insinuate or flat out accuse him of.

[cui bono]

112. Oh, I see, so it's all about defending Obama. Got it.

So you agree with him fighting so hard for the TPP? You said you are against it somewhere, so why defend Obama when he's pushing it so hard?

You know it is secret. That's been shown over and over again. Yet you continue to deny it.

You know he is pushing for this harder than anything else, other than his own bid for the presidency. That is clear from his words and actions, you said a politician's actions are what you pay attention to, so why ignore his? You just continue to deny this.

You just continue to deny everything that is factual if it goes against your preconceived notion of what Obama stands for based on what you are saying now.

He is pushing the big corporate agenda. An agenda that will circumvent sovereign nations' regulations in the name of profit and growth for corporations. How is that not screwing over the American worker, let alone the entire world?

You need to let go of your false notion that Obama is an altruist. He has shown he is absolutely not that.

He is killing innocent people needlessly with drone strikes. He backs the banksters at every turn. He lets war criminals walk and then calls torturers patriots. He allows Shell to drill in the arctic. He refused to even listen to single-payer advocates and had secret - yes secret, until he could no longer deny it - backroom meetings with the insurance companies, and he put into effect a conservative health program. He describes his policies and moderate Republican and we know they screw over American workers all the time (Reagan and the trickle down economics). He said he would put on his pair of 'comfortable shoes' when people protested but he left them all hanging when they did (most notably Wisconsin). He could care less about the Occupy movement. He put banksters in the White House and ex-Monsanto people at the EPA.

Why on earth would you think he is about protecting the American worker? What has he done - not said - to show this?

[MaggieD]

118. You got nothing

Asked and answered:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6707257

[cui bono]

123. Again, a link to a post that proves my point.

You're all about defending Obama. Got it.

[cali]

146. many thanks for your continued kicking of this thread.

[MaggieD]

147. You are very welcome!

My pleasure, in fact!

[ucrdem]

104. +1 to the billionth.

Oppo research fail.

[cui bono]

83. Then why are members of congress subject to arrest if they disclose TPP details that they've read?

Why did Boxer tell us that she's not allowed to take any notes she's made for herself out of the room where she's reading the TPP?

Good god man, you are a piece of work.

What do you personally have to gain from this that makes you defend it so much?

[MaggieD]

85. They aren't

Why are you so subject to believing stuff like that?

[cui bono]

99. At what point in timem are you going to digest all the facts presented to you?

WASHINGTON -- As the Obama administration gives House Democrats a hard sell on a major controversial trade pact this week, it will be doing so under severe conditions: Any member of Congress who shares information with the public from a Wednesday briefing could be prosecuted for a crime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/obama-trade-meeting_n_6881058.html

So the White House and the USTR have been pushing a charm offensive on Congressional Democrats concerning these trade deals, but the charm offensive also comes with this rather startling statement: if you reveal what we're telling you, you may go to jail:

As the Obama administration gives House Democrats a hard sell on a major controversial trade pact this week, it will be doing so under severe conditions: Any member of Congress who shares information with the public from a Wednesday briefing could be prosecuted for a crime.

Yes, the USTR has declared that the briefing is entirely classified. Why? Mainly to keep the details secret from the American public. As Rep. Alan Grayson notes:

"It is part of a multi-year campaign of deception and destruction. Why do we classify information? It's to keep sensitive information out of the hands of foreign governments. In this case, foreign governments already have this information. They're the people the administration is negotiating with. The only purpose of classifying this information is to keep it from the American people."

The USTR's lame response to all of this is that any member of Congerss is allowed to come to its office and see the text of the negotiating documents. But that's misleading in the extreme. As we've discussed before, the USTR tells elected officials that they can't copy anything, take any notes, or even bring staff experts on trade agreements (or related issues)... even when those staffers have security clearance.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150317/05052630338/ustr-pushes-congress-to-approve-trade-deals-threatens-reps-with-criminal-prosecution-if-they-tell-public-whats-them.shtml

“Any member of Congress who shares information with the public from a Wednesday briefing could be prosecuted for a crime.”

Photo from USTR.gov on the TPP

For years now, we’ve been trying to understand why the US Trade Rep (USTR) is so anti-transparency with its trade negotiations. It insists that everything it’s negotiating be kept in near total secrecy until everything is settled, and the public can no longer give input to fix the problems in the agreement. It’s a highly questionable stance. Whenever this criticism is put to the USTR directly, it responds by saying that it will listen to anyone who wants to come and talk to the USTR. But, as we’ve explained multiple times, “listening” is about information going into the USTR. “Transparency” is about information coming out of the USTR. They’re not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

As the fight over new trade agreements gets louder and louder, a key stumbling block is having Congress approve so-called “fast track authority” or “Trade Promotion Authority,” which basically means that Congress can’t even jump in to try to fix the problems in whatever the USTR negotiates — it can only give a straight “yes” or “no” vote on the entire package. For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, Congressional Republicans are all for this, even though it means directly giving up Congress’s Constitutional authority to a President that the Republicans appear to hate. Meanwhile, Democrats seem reasonably skeptical of these new trade deals.

So the White House and the USTR have been pushing a charm offensive on Congressional Democrats concerning these trade deals, but the charm offensive also comes with this rather startling statement: if you reveal what we’re telling you, you may go to jail:

As the Obama administration gives House Democrats a hard sell on a major controversial trade pact this week, it will be doing so under severe conditions: Any member of Congress who shares information with the public from a Wednesday briefing could be prosecuted for a crime.

Yes, the USTR has declared that the briefing is entirely classified. Why? Mainly to keep the details secret from the American public. As Rep. Alan Grayson notes:

“It is part of a multi-year campaign of deception and destruction. Why do we classify information? It’s to keep sensitive information out of the hands of foreign governments. In this case, foreign governments already have this information. They’re the people the administration is negotiating with. The only purpose of classifying this information is to keep it from the American people.”

https://www.popularresistance.org/us-trade-rep-threatens-congress-with-prosecution/

[polly7]

54. Kick and Recommend. nt.

[Enthusiast]

55. There it is! How can anyone support this TPP? How?

Here it is in black and white.

[raouldukelives]

80. How? With investments in Wall St. nt

[Oilwellian]

57. What a nice peek from the inside, out

It's an eye-opener, to be sure. Damn. Guess I'll coffee up in the morning. Thanks, Cali.

K&R

[cali]

62. it really is a peek inside

Worth the look

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Perhaps you should read the actual document ...

Rather than IBT's article. I think by the time you get to the bottom of page 2/top of page 3, you will see that the document does not comport with IBT's assessment.

[cali]

92. I'm reading it. You clearly are being most selective.

[blackspade]

66. Depraved indeed.

Terrible.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. Did you read any of the "damning" document? ...

In recent years, the United States has observed a growing trend among our trading partners to impose
localization barriers to trade – measures designed to protect, favor, or stimulate domestic industries, service
providers, or intellectual property at the expense of imported goods, services or foreign-owned or developed
intellectual property. These measures may operate as disguised barriers to trade and unreasonably
differentiate between domestic and foreign products, services, intellectual property, or suppliers.

It doesn't say what the IBT says it says.

[cali]

72. Yes. As is clear from my posts in this thread

You evidently did not. I'm only up to Costa Rica, but there's plenty that damning, including the listing as a trade barrier, food labeling via an icon,on prepared U.S. foods high in fat, sugar or salt,

There's plenty more. Costa Rica and U.S. cosmetics, Vietnam and environmental rules.

YOU go read it.

It doesn't say what you are pretending it says.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

71. International Capital is meant for one thing only ...

... to traverse national boundaries, domestic and international laws unimpeded, and to further redistribute wealth and control of resources to the rich and powerful. These "partnerships" and "trade agreements" are nothing more than to elevate corporate power to supranational status. They are effectively their own governments in this regard, with the ability to make and enforce laws without the pesky accountability of a nation-state voting public. It's the ultimate paradigm; governments with no accountability, and to enslave the majority to do the bidding of the minority. Welcome to our dystopia. It comes with McDonald's and Kardashians!

Edit to add: Also, any externatalities and costs will, of course, be accepted by the public.

[Fast Walker 52]

76. well, how else will we be able to export American values, i.e. poor health

and taking advantage of people?

[cui bono]

78. It's pretty clear by now that the TPP is merely a regulation buster and profit increaser

for huge corporations, people be damned. COUNTRIES be damned!

So Obama is legislating the USA and other countries to be under the rule of big corporations.

HOW CAN ANYONE DEFEND THAT?????

WHY would anyone defend that?????

[polly7]

79. Exactly.

And the poorest of the poor in countries run by corrupt gov'ts or gov'ts unable to fight these huge multinational corporations will be the first to suffer.

For me, it seems like enabling rats to scurry and salvage what's left of the world's resources and finances at the expense of the most vulnerable - I don't understand why anyone is supporting it except, obviously, those who stand to benefit.

[cui bono]

82. Yes. Anyone who isn't the 1% who is defending it is clearly a blind follower.

There is no other explanation for it. Look who wants it passed so badly, the Cons. The idolization is strong. Very strong. Or it's the inability to admit one is wrong and have their head explode. Cognitive dissonance is difficult to deal with.

[raouldukelives]

84. And that is the problem. Many own a share of whatever those rats can scavenge.

Once you are an owner, you grant them fiduciary responsibility. You are relinquishing to them carte blanche to do whatever it takes, in your name, to generate profits.
Things most people would never do to someone in person, but have no problem paying someone else to do for them.
The more invested, the more molested, as it were.

[polly7]

86. Yes, and very well stated, sad as it is to think that human beings care so little for those who will

be hurt.

[cui bono]

137. I fear you are correct for those that have gambled.

I never trusted the stock market.

My union benefits are tied to the market though, but that doesn't make me fight for the wrong thing.

[Dont call me Shirley]

94. WooHoo, cali, Thom Hartmann just called you out by name and referenced, I believe, this OP!

Congratulations!

[cali]

97. hey, cool. last year he called out a thread of mine, not realizing it was satire

so I called him and had a nice chat on air. It's on youtube somewhere.

[TBF]

96. "Burdensome labeling" ...

why do the little people need labels? Thanks to "teach to the test" it's not like there's time to teach literacy or critical thinking anymore anyway. Just fill in your dots and play your video games, people. Move along. Nothing to see here.