More Reasons to Tell Our President "No TPP" and "No Fast Track"

[rhett o rick]

We are being told by fellow Democrats (?) to blindly trust the President on this issue, but Sen Sanders is telling us to take actions.

3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and other free trade agreements have helped drive down the wages and benefits of American workers and have eroded collective bargaining rights.
The TPP will make the race to the bottom worse because it forces American workers to compete with desperate workers in Vietnam where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour.

4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
The TPP will allow corporations to challenge any law that would adversely impact their future profits. Pending claims worth over $14 billion have been filed based on similar language in other trade agreements. Most of these claims deal with challenges to environmental laws in a number of countries. The TPP will make matters even worse by giving corporations the right to sue any of the nations that sign onto the TPP. These lawsuits would be heard in international tribunals bypassing domestic courts.

This information came from Sen Sanders. Support Sen Sanders opposition of the TTP here: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/stop-the-tpp

Also if you haven't seen it, here's a video re. the TPP:

[daleanime]

1. K&R....

[Demeter]

2. It's not enough to tell the President, or even Congress

We have to tell the CORPORATIONS and we have to do it in a sufficiently effective way that this effort is dead in the water forever.

This means putting screws to corporations, telling them what they can and cannot do with their power and wealth, what they cannot do with the government, and if they decide to decamp for sunnier shores, that they cannot take it with them.

[rhett o rick]

5. I agree, but the problem is, how do we do this? nm

[Demeter]

8. Writing good, enforceable laws and ENFORCING them!

None of this repealing Glass-Steagal on the theory that it's different now. No presidential pardons for war crimes or economic crimes.

The 99% have to get money out of politics and Corporations out of DC.

[aspirant]

10. The problem is

lots of our politicians and corporate leadership are mentally ill. Greed, selfishness etc. are not positive traits and to tell these power grubbers anything will only result in anger.

One solution is revoking their charters but then all will flee to Delaware where most of them are now

These psychopaths understand the fear of losing money and power. Fear could cripple them, so uncovering other fears would be helpful for their demise

Maybe Kryptonite will work on the SUPER multinationals.

[sabrina 1]

12. The best way to do that is to not buy their stuff. Boycotts work, starve the beast, take away

their power by not continuing to give them the money that provides them with power.

That would require a huge, worldwide organized Boycott of selected Major Corporations who are known to be buying Members of Congress.

Can the people do it?

I think so, if they are willing to do without a few unnecessary items.

Before we get the money out of politics, we have to get Congressional members funded by Corps, out.

THEY will never pass any decent campaign finance reform bills.

It will be hard, but we have to start somewhere.

[elzenmahn]

15. I'll drink to this...

...we could start with one - perhaps WalMart.

[sabrina 1]

19. Exactly, focus on one at a time. Boycotts are probably the most effective means

of protest imo. Street protests are good, but once everyone goes home, that's it.

Boycotts however have a lasting effect on those targeted. Money is the god of Corporations, protesting this is fine, but doesn't really affect them.

Refusing to buy their stuff definitely gets their attention.

[elzenmahn]

20. Precisely because boycotts speak the one language these corporate behemoths understand...

...MONEY!

When they notice that they can actually sit down because their corporate wallets are getting thinner in their back pockets, we'll have their attention.

[jwirr]

16. Absolutely. What I think should be done is speech not allowed on DU. Corporations have always

been the ones leading this change in business models. When we march in DC we are protesting their flunkies and will never get anywhere. Boycotting is also a tool but it seldom works because not enough people join in.

One of the biggest problems in fighting the corporations is that we do not know who owns them. Who their stock holders are. In fact we may even be some of the owners through our savings accounts which are invested by the banksters for us.

We need to study the corporations and find their weak spots. Then we might be able to act.

I also would not mind then leaving as long as they cannot take it with them. I love the idea of worker owned or coop businesses. It was the way this nation was built.

[aspirant]

3. ObamaTrade if you like your job, you can keep your job

We should have something like the separation between church and state, now being the separation between corporations and state

Or could we just define corporations as religious entities, problem solved

[Jackpine Radical]

4. If we like our country, can we keep our country?

If we like our environment, can we keep our environment?

[Demeter]

6. That's why we invented war, you know

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting.

We gotta destroy the planet in order to save it.

[Demeter]

9. War is about keeping, not saving

Peace is about saving. We are in a state of war with the multinational corporations. The problem is, too many people don't realize it.

[jwirr]

17. Yes.

[pangaia]

11. This is the 'new war.'

or, rather, the old war made easy.

[whereisjustice]

13. don't worry, we'll fix it later eom

[Fred Sanders]

14. NAFTA "forced" American workers to compete with Mexican workers, but the sky has not fallen.

Vietnamese workers are not paid in American dollars, and their minimum wage is about as good as America mimimum wage in terms of cost of meeting basic needs.

"Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has given the go-ahead to the increase in Vietnam’s minimum monthly salary by between VND250,000-VND400,000 (US$12-$19) starting next year.

Under a government decree that takes effect January 1, 2015, Vietnam will raise the wage floor to VND2.15 million–VND3.1 million ($101.4-$146.2), depending on the location. In August, the National Wage Council, which advises the government on wage policies, proposed that the minimum wages be raised to VND2.42 million-VND3.1m"

"However, even that salary only covers 69-77 percent of a Vietnamese person's basic living costs, according to the survey, which polled 1,500 workers in 12 cities and provinces during the first half of this year.
Up to 13 percent of workers said their salaries do not cover their basic living costs, 25 percent said they had to spend carefully and 50 percent said their salary only affords the most basic standard of living."

[jwirr]

18. If I understand the TPP correctly the corporations that have businesses in Vietnam would then

be able to sue the country for profit lost due to the wage raise?

[Fred Sanders]

43. I would have to see some direct treaty language to answer that.

[Hoyt]

52. Doesn't mean they'd win, and I'll bet when language is released they'll be some

strong restrictions.

[rhett o rick]

22. Are you supporting the TPP? Are you trying to convince us that it won't be so bad?

As far as the sky falling, those using our foodbank and soup lines wouldn't agree with you. We need jobs and this agreement will not provide more jobs for Americans.

And NAFTA did nothing to alleviate poverty in Mexico.

And the TPP is way more than a mere treaty. The treaty portion is a Trojan Horse for many "agreements" that negitively affect the 99%.

If you have arguments showing otherwise, I'd love to see them.

[Fred Sanders]

32. I trust the President so of course I support him, I can see some positions opposing a free trade

agreement extension to further nations lack persuasive arguments and evidence of catastrophe.

There are going to bewinners and losers, and not enough lollipops and sunshine, but Obama believes there will be a net gain for American middle class and workers, and I believe him...in the meantime there are still negotiations and the release of the actual final document is still pending.

[rhett o rick]

33. This is way more than merely a "free trade agreement". What the President is asking is for us to

blindly trust him. That situation should never come up in a democracy. There has been no one that I've seen that can even speculate how this can help the Middle and Working Classes of America. Why is that? Why isn't there anyone out there trying to show us how this will help us?? All predecessors have damaged the lower classes and aided corporations.

"There are going to be winners and losers, and not enough lollipops and sunshine, " And as it now stands the winners are going to be corporations and losers are going to be the lower classes of America.

There are two wings of the Democratic Party and I stand with the progressive wing and Sen Sanders. The other wing supports the TPP, fracking, domestic spying, and the Patriot Act. And torture.

[Fred Sanders]

34. No, the other wing does not support those things, silly to say so.....but it makes for better copy.

Adding "blindly" to another's stated words is so Republican of you...

[rhett o rick]

35. You claim the "other" wing doesn't support those issues but the facts indicate otherwise.

For one thing the "other" wing will not indicate how they stand on these issues and yet they will criticize those that oppose these issues as doing so only because they hate Pres Obama.

For example, there are ony two ways to view fracking. The progressive wing opposes fracking and the President and H. Clinton support fracking. But those that support the President and H. Clinton will not debate the merits of fracking.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Personal attack

It's uncalled-for behavior that's unfortunately accepted (and sometimes even encouraged) in other parts of DU, but it is not acceptable in decent company generally, and in this PRDP group specifically.

Either promptly fix it and apologize, or find other groups to post in.

It's pretty reasonable for rhett o rick to infer what he did from your post - perhaps you could explain why your positions are not functionally blind agreement with the President, and why Third-Way Democrats don't actually support those positions despite demanding them and/or failing to call for an end to them.

If you don't respond to this promptly and are locked out of the group despite wanting to clean things up, please PM a host to let them know what's up.

[Fred Sanders]

41. "Populist Reform" should encourage debate, not suppress it, and contextual abuse is what should not

tolerated, not encouraged.

How do you know what is so popular if you do not tolerate civil debate, or is populism pre-determined?

(Notice how I did not use "blindly".)

[wavesofeuphoria]

55. This is not debate or discussion ... this is a personal attack.

And one that will stifle and frustrate those trying to discuss due to its pettiness.

[Faryn Balyncd]

39. Your condescending use of "lollipops" could perhaps be appropriate if you were referring to the

.... grab-bag of corporatist goodies now being peddled as a "free trade agreement" (massive extension of intellectual property monopolies, castration of pesky governments that might have the audacity to attempt to fulfill their constitutional duties to protect the environment, workers rights or safety, food safety, food labeling, etc by means of investor state dispute resolution tribunals exempt from the judicial system and which will set up de facto corporate sovereignty).


Yet somehow I suspect you are implying it is the defenders of American workers and vanishing middle class who you are implying want "lollipops", rather than lobbyists for the corporate interests that are pushing this mother of all corporate welfare schemes.

[Fred Sanders]

42. Your entire premise is in error.

[Faryn Balyncd]

49. Care to articulate?

In your reply #41, you stated that this forum "should encourage civil debate".




So is your idea of "debate" to simply pronounce that one's "entire premise is in error".


Or is your idea of "civil debate" to pronounce another "silly", or "so Republican", or engaged in making "better copy", or making condescending reference to "not enough lollipops"?

[demwing]

61. This is not the place to promote NAFTA or the TPP

present 3rd way policies, or to be dismissive of those in opposition to the former.

Fell free to post that in GD, or the BOG.

[BrotherIvan]

23. But that's not what trade deals do in terms of wages

In simple terms, an American worker making $10.00 an hour cannot compete with a worker making $0.56 an hour. When the cost of labor becomes so low, the other costs associated with offshoring are offset and the company takes the business out of the US.

I know because our company manufactures in the US. We pay our workers above minimum wage along with the cost of goods in the US which are much higher (benefiting those US businesses). We squeak by at about 10%-15% higher retail because our company structure is lean. Our competitors are making stuff in China or Pakistan or Vietnam at 80-90% less cost. And because Americans are broke, the couple extra bucks is too much for them (or they are just used to rock bottom cheap junk which is another subject). We are almost forced to take production overseas to be able to compete. That's the issue.

Does the TPP mean service jobs and others that require physical US presence will be affected, I don't know. Does it mean that the manufacturing base which had just been making a comeback in the US will flee forever? Yes. Further, what that also means is that most of America will eventually be working crappy low-wage service jobs instead of the skilled, higher-paying manufacturing ones.

But the worst part is the power it will give corporations in regulation of labor and the environment, in terms of political power, and the fact that they can be as harmful and negligent as they want in the name of profits. They want to force countries to take products they have banned, such as GMO seed. They will likely be able to get around chemical and mechanical safety laws. The corporations are writing this--in secret--so I have no doubt it is the seventh ring of hell.

[truedelphi]

62. Thanks for sharing the story of what

Is going on "out in the field."

My spouse and I have become hooked on the TV show "Shark Tank" and it always amazes us tht some small time entrepreneurs are willing to take a hit on their profits in order to have the device they want to sell get manufactured here in the USA.

Yet one or two of the greedier sharks will say, "I will give you the money you need, if you agree that we manufacture where it would be 97% cheaper." But small town folks don't want to do that - they enjoy knowing they are helping their community.

The shrks will be greedy about it -eveen if the entrepreneur can guarantee them a 1300 % profit! The sharks want that extra 100%

[Phlem]

26. ...

[aspirant]

29. ObamaTrade is not a Populist deal

No labor, environmentalists are represented. What are you doing in this group, go peddle this stuff back in GD

[MannyGoldstein]

38. First off, NAFTA destroyed US jobs

That's not in dispute, even by members of the Obama administration.

Second, Clinton's almost-free trade with China was even far worse.

Bush's "free" trade agreements with S. Korea, Colombia and Panama, railroaded through a Democratic Congress by Obama, have also destroyed jobs.

Now you claim that it's OK to ease trade with microwage nations because the cost of living in those countries is also low. I think that's totally not the point. The point is that if US companies have a choice between paying 8 bucks an hour for a US worker, or - as you claim - less than 5 bucks per week for a Vietnamese worker, they'll go with the 5 bucks per week. Jobs will fly away from the US, as they have after every other "free" trade agreement.

Enough.

[Fred Sanders]

45. The jobless rate in America today is no worse than the historical average...."lost jobs" are as impossible

to quantify as "jobs saved", the long term employment and wage trend in America, while stagnant, are at rates that are the envy of the world. Could it be better, could it be worse, yes to both.

[rhett o rick]

47. Are you claiming that no jobs were lost by moving manufacturing overseas? nm

[Fred Sanders]

48. Please. What jobs were gained by America, .i.e. meat exports, heavy equipment, aircraft, etc., what was

the net effect?

[rhett o rick]

50. Since you continue to provide your argument via questions, we have to guess at your actual

stand on this issue. Are you saying that moving manufacturing jobs didn't matter? People lost their jobs as the taxpayers subsidized the movement of manufacturing overseas. So you think the NAFTA was good and we gained jobs?

[Fred Sanders]

53. Did you forget that your comment to me was one question?

[rhett o rick]

56. And another side-step. I am not using questions to avoid stating my point. In fact

I use questions to guess your point. You don't seem to like to take a stand on an issue but just question other people's stands.

I will state my stand on the TPP, will you do the same?

[Skittles]

51. you need to stop being blinded by purty numbers

and look at what is REALLY happening to American jobs - "net effect" means JACK SHIT

[Fred Sanders]

54. Yes, perhaps, "jackshit" does have a technical economic science definition...meaning to ignore jobs

gained and never look at net effect.

I quote economists, some folk prefer the bald faced allegations of politicians....free country.
I also like to look at historical events similar in nature for guidance, again I avoid the politicians who avoid the economists and scientist.


http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21592612-north-americas-trade-deal-has-delivered-real-benefits-job-not-done-deeper-better



"The American and Canadian economies were already pretty well integrated before the creation of NAFTA, so there was no great leap in trade between the two. But America’s trade with Mexico increased by 506% between 1993 and 2012, compared with 279% with non-NAFTA countries. In 2011 America traded as much with Canada and Mexico as it did with the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China), Japan and South Korea combined. The “giant sucking sound” that Ross Perot, a presidential candidate, predicted would be heard as Mexico hoovered up American jobs never materialised; if jobs have moved anywhere in the past two decades, they have gone to China, not Mexico. Industries from aerospace to cars have woven supply chains back and forth across North America’s borders. Some 40% of the content of imports from Mexico into the United States, and 25% of the content of imports from Canada, originated in the United States itself. Helped by rising energy production in all three countries, Factory North America is being created (see article)."

You are not going to like this:


http://www.npr.org/2013/12/08/249079453/economists-toast-20-years-of-nafta-critics-sit-out-the-party

[rhett o rick]

57. For those that support the 1% and trickle-down, NAFTA is a huge success.

Corporations are doing much better, but not the 99%. I bet you think that because the stock market is up that things are better for the lower classes.

[pa28]

44. Right, how can you be "forced" to compete with someone who has your old job?

Millions of Americans displaced from well paying work. Thousands of factories closed. Communities gutted.

For those people the sky did fall and it really doesn't seem to bother you very much.

[demwing]

59. "the sky has not fallen" - true, for the 1%

But the middle class are falling into poverty, and the poor are falling into oblivion.

[Faryn Balyncd]

21. "#8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else. Under TPP, governments would be ....

"Number 8.

Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Under TPP, governments would be barred from imposing “capital controls” that have been
successfully used to avoid financial crises. These controls range from establishing a financial speculation tax to limiting the massive flows of speculative capital flowing into and out of countries responsible for the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s.

In other words, the TPP would expand the rights and power of the same Wall Street firms that nearly destroyed the world economy just five years ago and would create the conditions for more financial instability in the future...."




http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

[BrotherIvan]

24. Big Rec!

I am stunned at the level of ignorance on DU regarding the TPP. Though some will never examine the facts, some might.

[rhett o rick]

31. It's worse than ignorance. Ignorance can be treated with education. But many Americans

are brought up to blindly follow their parents, their teachers, their priests, their scout masters, their coaches, their bosses, their military leaders, etc.

It's much easier for those I mentioned to teach blind obedience than to teach how to think for yourself and keeping an open mind. It's called authoritarianism. Authoritarianism isn't just restricted to Republicans but it is a conservative trait. Blindly following and trusting a leader is the easy way out. Trying to hold your elected representatives is hard work. You have to actually learn about issues. Some here when asked how they stand on the TPP, say that they will wait and see. That's not the attitude of an open-minded progressive. Just sayin'.

[Doctor_J]

40. worse than ignorance. If the president told them to give all their money to Jamie

Dimon, their checks would be in the mail tomorrow morning. "You can't complain because you haven't seen it". "The president's hiding it". "Well, I trust him so I don't need to see it".

[onecaliberal]

25. These fucking corporations and their paid off

Polls includes anyone who is for this complete screwing of 99%.
This country cannot recover from this giveaway. If you don't know what third world living is like you'd better get familiar. And if you think this won't affect you, That level of ignorance can only be rivaled by republican voters.
What the fuck is wrong with people. This can't be allowed to happen.
Why is POTUS for this? I want someone to explain that to me.

[Faryn Balyncd]

27. The kicker: "#10 The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal."

#10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.

Once TPP is agreed to, it has no sunset date and could only be altered by a consensus of all of the countries that
agreed to it. . . . "



http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

Traditionally. "Free Trade Agreements" have been about eliminating tariffs, which had the effect of not only increasing trade, but decreased established corporate monopolistic power.

Recently, with NAFTA, and with what has been rumored to be in the closed door lobbying/negotiations involving TPP, the process has become a corporate grab-bag of policies that increase corporate monopolistic power and decrease competition (through massive expansion of intellectual property law, and the destruction of the ability of governments to protect the environment, workers, and consumers, enforced by enabling corporations to sue governments in a corporate controlled tribunal which are exempted from appeal in the judicial system.

And worst of all, once enacted, it becomes virtually impossible to fix, as that would require unanimous approval by all participants.

This so-called "Free Trade Agreement" is nothing less than a trojan horse for corporate sovereignty.

[onecaliberal]

28. ^^^ that

[Teamster Jeff]

30. kick rec

[Enthusiast]

36. Kicked and recommended! Every progressive DUer should recommend this OP!

Mr. President, we don't care what you say, this trade deal is unacceptable.

[sadoldgirl]

46. I cannot claim to understand all

of the economic implications of this agreement, but the complaint about
far lower pay in other countries is in itself a huge problem. Why have we
lowered the tariffs so much that the import is cheaper than our own
products.

If I understand it correctly the corporations, which would profit the most
from this are transnational ones (though claiming to be US companies).
Thus I don't see any reasons to help them at all. It is not really a true
competition.

[demwing]

58. Pin of the Week!

thanks rhett o rick, your post will stay pinned till Monday 1/12/2015!

[rhett o rick]

60. Thanks, it's certainly a hot topic. nm

[NYC_SKP]

63. Not that it needs kicking, but I rec and kick this post. nt