Can anyone explain why the President is pushing terrible FTAs?

[cali]

How can someone who claims to support labor, the environment, healthcare access, etc., be pushing so hard for the TPP and TTIP?

How is that not going to blow back on dems in 2014 and 2016?

Why is the administration so adamant about including "investor rights" that trample over local governance?

Why on earth is the President supporting trade deals that are 'NAFTA on steroids'?

Anyone?

[JaneyVee]

1. Lifts other countries out of poverty?

[villager]

2. Well, certainly not the U.S.

n/t

[HughBeaumont]

6. While introducing more of it here.

Nice trade off.

You still buy that "Free trade creates higher paying jobs in America" crap that the neolibs try and sell you?

[cali]

8. How so? Which countries?

Actually, there's evidence that the TPP- what we know of it- would damage other countries in a myriad of ways- drug prices, for instance and the environment. Investors rights that enable corporations to sue countries in front of a tribunal that is composed of attorneys who when they aren't sitting on the tribunal are representing the corporations in question, hasn't worked out so well in NAFTA and other FTAs- to put it mildly.

[cascadiance]

9. More that it lifts their corporate buddies that much more over the world's downward shift to poverty

... to promote oligarchy that Obama and so many others around the world are being BOUGHT to make happen!

[rhett o rick]

79. Ask Mexico "How's that working for yeah?" How do these agreements improve

working conditions and workers compensation? IMO they make the conditions worse.

These trade agreements allow corporations to sue sovereign governments if they lose profits. These trade agreement are win-win-win for corporatocracy.

[DJ13]

3. He's not running again, so he doesnt care?

In fact he'll get bigger speaking fees from the Fortune 500 crowd after he's out of office if its passed.

[bvar22]

45. Also, NOBODY running in 2016 from either the Democratic Party OR the Republicans

....will OPPOSE "Free Trade".

The Democratic Party Corporate Elite WILL take care of that in the Democratic Primaries.






You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Kolesar]

4. To end those trade restrictions that keep our products out of Korea

Do you have any documentation of including "investor rights" that trample over local governance

Has the treaty draft been published yet? I am familiar with these issues after reading "Myths of Free Trade" by Congressman Sherrod Brown.

[cali]

12. yes, tons of documentation. do a search with my name and TPP

jaysus, I've only posted dozens and dozens of threads about this with ample documentation. There have been leaks. They came out last summer, including the draft on investor rights.

here, just for you. Have fun and do try and refute the facts. There are plenty more where these came from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023455457
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023216358
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023182266
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023182306
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023209078
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3182246
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023401331

[Kolesar]

21. Your first post refers to a "leaked document/draft"

Then it talks about Australia and ISDS, hooray. Then it talks about NAFTA. But there is no draft of the TPP which is what I asked for in my post.

[cali]

27. there is a draft leak of the investor rights chapter

and there is a shitload of documentation in those links about the TPP. I suggest that you cure being so badly ill informed by doing your own due diligence and researching it yourself. I really shouldn't need to spoon feed you- though that's what I've done.

Lame.

[Kolesar]

70. If you had any documentation, you would have put it up here

You just have leaks/fantasies.

[cali]

72. I did. it's in the links, but for whatever reason YOU are denying the facts.

pretty odd and quite reprehensible.

[cali]

73. one more time and please stop being less than honest:

A leaked draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) investment chapter has been published online by Citizens Trade Campaign, the same coalition that first published TPP proposals from the United States on intellectual property, regulatory coherence and drug formularies in late 2011. Draft texts are said to exist for some 26 separate chapters, none of which have ever been officially released by trade negotiators for public review.

“Americans deserve the right to know what U.S. negotiators are proposing in our names,” said Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign. ”In the absence of transparency on the part of our government, we have a responsibility to share what information we receive about the TPP with the public.”

The new texts reveal that TPP negotiators are considering a dispute resolution process that would grant transnational corporations special authority to challenge countries’ laws, regulations and court decisions in international tribunals that circumvent domestic judicial systems.

“We are just beginning to analyze the new texts now, but they clearly contain proposals designed to give transnational corporations special rights that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens,” said Stamoulis. ”A proposal that could have such broad effects on environmental, consumer safety and other public interest regulations deserves public scrutiny and thorough public debate. It shouldn’t be crafted behind closed doors.”

<snip>

http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/blog/2012/06/13/newly-leaked-tpp-investment-chapter-contains-special-rights-for-corporations/

got that: leaked draft of the investment chapter.

Not that you'll do anything but pretend it's not there.

[Kolesar]

75. You should be writing to Congress and the President, then ...

I was on local Cleveland TV for a few seconds when *we* marched against the FTAA in the previous decade. FTAA was not approved.
***
I still doubt your leaks, though.

[cali]

76. bwahahahaha. this leak has been documented over and over again and YOU

doubt it? I don't believe you for a nanosecond on your *claim* that you marched against the FTAA.

First you deny that I posted evidence, which I clearly did. Then when you can't squirm out of the evidence you say it's not real.

you really are something.

[Kolesar]

90. Call me a liar

http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x4074

[SomethingFishy]

54. The TPP talks are being done behind closed doors in secret.

You aren't allowed to know what's in it until it's already passed. The only info out there is the stuff being leaked.

[Kolesar]

71. That's true...eom

[enough]

5. I think Obama shares the worldview of the rest of the powerful/wealthly

people who control the corporate/governmental structure of the world. He can't help it. He swims in that water and breathes that air.

[leftstreet]

7. ..'*claims* to support labor, the environment, healthcare access'

answer right there

[MrSlayer]

10. Because that is what the owners want.

It doesn't help anyone but them. It doesn't hurt anyone but us.

[Lee-Lee]

11. Labor and unions will support him and any dem nominee regardless

But that corporate money he has to earn.

[Enrique]

19. well said

brilliantly in fact.

[laundry_queen]

20. For the win! nt

[Doctor_J]

83. But if they don't show up next year, the ass-kicking will be their fault

same with environmentalists, teachers, and pacifists.

[The Link]

13. He's a fucking New Democrat.

[Fuddnik]

36. AKA: A Republican Trojan Horse.

[L0oniX]

14. I'll wait to see all the BOG leader links to the answers to all your questions.

Certainly Snowden has something to do with all this.

I voted for Obama and did not get what I voted for.

[cali]

15. they won't. which is why I'll keep kicking this

those who have proclaimed President Obama as one of the greatest presidents in history will ignore this and all other threads that they can't rationally respond to or dispute.

They'd rather post endless obsessive, creepy posts about Snowden.

[cali]

16. kick. c'mon. where are the ardent defenders?

don't want to touch this, do you?

[pa28]

17. He compared himself to a moderate Republican in the debates.

Maybe the reason is in there someplace. He's a devoted Chicago school neoliberal.

[loudsue]

34. People who didn't read his books don't realize how conservative he was to start with

And he has only gotten more conservative since getting elected the second and last time.

[Enrique]

18. he also cares about the corporations

and they want this. It isn't the first time he has helped them.

Regarding the blowback, how would that happen? Who is going to make this an issue in the elections? How many people even have any clue what this is about?

But your questions might have been rhetorical...

[cali]

23. first of all, it's starting to get more attention and the upcoming push

for the TPA will bring a lot more. There's still over a year until the 2014 elections. A well done ad or two could be effective.

[Autumn]

22. And WHOM do these FTAs benefit?

Cause there's your answer.

[Orsino]

39. Most of the people close to his Administration.

Even a genuine reformer's good intentions would fade in an environment like that.

[Arctic Dave]

24. He has to earn his way to be a "buddy" of the elite.

This will make him rich beyond his wildest dreams. As for the rest of us, he doesn't give a rats ass.

[Scuba]

25. Because the oligarchs threatened to eat his children.

[Recursion]

26. Because the alternative is worse

It's not like offshoring stops in absence of an FTA; these are governments' attempts to assert at least some control over the process.

Also, we love selling wheat, beef, and soy to Asia.

[cali]

29. how is the alternative worse? What do you think is the alternative?

Sorry, it would not be worse. At least investors (corporations) wouldn't be able to sue over such things as this:

Last month, Eli Lilly, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in North America, filed a lawsuit against Canadian taxpayers for $500 million dollars. On what basis is an American corporation suing us for such an outrageous sum you ask? The $4.3 billion dollars Eli Lilly earned in profit in 2011 was not enough for the pharmaceutical giant.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a company can sue another NAFTA country if that nation’s laws affect its expected future profit. In this case, Eli Lilly is “losing profit” because Canadian regulators dared to act within Canadian laws and rightly denied patents on two of Eli Lilly’s expensive drugs.



<snip>

http://action.sumofus.org/a/eli-lilly/3/6/?sub=homepage

this doesn't happen in a Canadian Court, but in a tribunal where the odds are stacked monumentally in favor of corporations.

<snip>

The claim raises the possibility that the drugmaker may be able to use a private NAFTA tribunal, which is a form of arbitration, to override judicial rulings on patents. The drugmaker maintains this was necessary because Canada violated its rights, but consumer advocates worry the move is a way of thwarting generic competition and, as a result, higher drug prices.

"All domestic avenues of appeal in Canada have been exhausted and the only recourse left to Lilly is to seek arbitration under Chapter 11 (of NAFTA). Lilly did not make this decision lightly," a Lilly statement says. The drugmaker maintains that 17 drug patents were "rendered invalid or unenforceable" under a new judicial standard despite approval by Health Canada.

<snip>

http://www.pharmalive.com/100m-brawl-lilly-canada-an-invalidated-patent

[loudsue]

42. That is terrifying to me. We are being terrorized by corporations and the "treaties" they have

pushed through when they bought our politicians. The dark forces have been unleashed on the world.

[Half-Century Man]

43. Doesn't "expected future profit" actually mean

number we thought about before extracting it from our ass? Can't Canada respond with "exceeded expected levels of corporate douchebaggery?"

[cali]

49. It goes before a tribunal that is set up under NAFTA, so no.

[Half-Century Man]

50. was going for the joke

if for no other reason than somewhere a white wigged barrister would have to read aloud in court "Douchebaggery".
my body is 54, my ego is 19

[Doctor_J]

84. Never mind. If the administration starts killing babies on the WH lawn,

Recursion will be lauding the president's aggressive move to reduce overpopulation. And we'll probably get some blue links to WH web sites that explain how ecological the process is.

[rhett o rick]

80. Where do you get your talking points? nm

[Recursion]

88. Some of us use processes called "research" and "independent thought"

I realize that to someone in the talking points world, it's easy to assume that everyone takes talking points from somebody. However, it's not the case.

[rhett o rick]

89. Plez tell me you arent serious. "Some of us use processes called "research" and

"independent thought". Yet somehow you end up after all that with right-wing talking points.

The Republicans love the "free trade" agreements. They are win-win for corporations and the 1%. Not so good for the lower classes.

[HooptieWagon]

28. Because he is beholden to the Corps who profit from them?

That would seem to be the obvious reason.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. He's getting advice from Bill Clinton

[BuelahWitch]

31. Because corporations are people, my friend!

The only ones he listens to!

Kick!

[limpyhobbler]

32. Corporations are running the show.

Through their campaign activities, through their lobbying of Congress and the federal agencies, they exert power.

They have narrow particular interests and a big "trade deal" like TPP is kind of the sum of the various negotiated particular interests of the companies.

We have government of, by, and for the corporations.

Obama is the spokesperson they send out to help make the American people feel comfortable with it.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. "investor rights" WTF? What about labor rights Mr. President? What about wages?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

35. I don't get the sense he's pushing that hard for them

[cali]

51. He is anc there have been a number of articles about that.

Beyond that, the history of the TPP confirms how important an item this is on his agenda, as do comments by his USTR, Froman and Kirk, former USTR.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/everything_you_wanted_to_know_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership/

http://www.law360.com/articles/459970/tpp-negotiators-making-progress-toward-pact-officials-say

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000426701

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/12/remarks-president-meeting-trans-pacific-partnership

[MisterP]

37. 'cause he wants to

[Rex]

38. Plutocracy.

That is how they work, doesn't matter who is in charge...they all punch in at the 1% clock. Wasn't always like this, before Reagan came along and started the process, we had a decent regulated market. Special interest groups destroyed this country and are far from done.

[DeSwiss]

40. K&R

[center]
[/center]

[bvar22]

87. The only thing missing from the above...

..is our politicians, Democrats & Republicans,
off to the side, laughing, pointing,
and betting their money on the Fat Guy.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Simple. The FTA's are not as terrible as their detractors claim

[cali]

44. Seriously? No explanation with facts as to why they aren't

"as terrible as their detractors claim"?

Can you grasp why your little declaration is meaningless? I provide facts and links? YOU? Not a damned thing except your declaration that they aren't terrible.

You respond to none of the facts.

Lame.

[kelliekat44]

48. Our trade deficit is down more than 20% and falling. He must be doing something right. nt

[cali]

52. that has nothing to do with either the TPP or TTIP

and although that's true, it's hardly worked out to the advantage of workers in this country.

[pampango]

56. And our trade deficit with 'free trade' countries is almost nonexistent.

Our trade deficit with 'non-free trade' countries is terrible and our trade deficit with 'non-free trade'/non-WTO countries is the worst of all.

That said, this trade negotiation is not really about 'free trade' since we already have that with most of the other countries in this negotiation.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. "not as terrible"

That's the new standard of greatness?

Yikes!

[rhett o rick]

81. Do you have anything to back that up? nm

[rhett o rick]

82. Check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017131109

[Phlem]

46. but but but

he's creating jobs. Just ask the other crowd.



-p

[bvar22]

47. In 2005,

In 2005, polls of American people, Democrats & Republicans, by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, found that:

" 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

And, yet, in 2013, we have the leader of the "Working Class Party"
pushing for MORE "Free Trade"!!???

Something BAD wrong with this picture.
I guess the Obstructionist Republicans made him do this too?




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.

[pampango]

55. In 2010, the same Pew Research Group conducted a poll on partisan attitudes towards 'free trade'.

And, yet, in 2013, we have the leader of the "Working Class Party"
pushing for MORE "Free Trade"!!???

Something BAD wrong with this picture.
I guess the Obstructionist Republicans made him do this too?

This poll may have something to do with why Obama is negotiating a new trade deal. It's a pretty safe bet that tea party types will not support "MORE 'Free Trade'".

[bvar22]

59. I don't know about "Tea Party Types",

but THIS FDR/LBJ Working Class Democrat surely does NOT support MORE Free Trade.

Even Candidate Obama in 2008 admitted that NAFTA was destructive for America's Working Class when he promised to "immediately Re-Negotiate NAFTA".
Of course, we ALL know how that went.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. +1

[pampango]

64. In 2010, 35% of Democrats agreed with you.

While not 'immediate' renegotiation, Obama probably considers the TPP negotiations as 'renegotiating' NAFTA since Canada and Mexico are included and this will take precedence over NAFTA provisions. Conservatives have complained about Obama's inclusion of labor rights and environmental regulation in these negotiations.

[liberal_at_heart]

66. inclusion of labor rights and environmental regulation? Hah.

Thanks for the laugh.

[bvar22]

67. Let me ask the question on the "survey",

and +90% of Democrats will say,
"Not just NO,
but Fuck No" to MORE "Free Trade".
I guarantee it.

That is WHY the Obama Administration is keeping it a "secret",
and our MSM is helping him.
He wants to keep "NAFTA on Steroids" a Fast Track "surprise"
until it is too late.
No debate, No amendments, No discussion

No representatives of LABOR at the "negotiations".
No representatives for Human Rights Protections at the "negotiations".
No representatives for Environmental Protections at the "negotiations".
No representatives of the Democratic Party at the "negotiations".

This treaty is being decided among the Global Predatory Corporations,
no one else allowed.

[Doctor_J]

85. It's a lot like the Health Care reform discussions in that respect

Any opinions that might sound off-key are not invited to the symphony.

[Doctor_J]

53. He doesn't have to run for re-election, so he's revealing his true Ronald Reagan self

The party won't survive his presidency.

[H2O Man]

57. Recommended.

Keep up the good work.

[cali]

58. thanks H20 Man

[GiaGiovanni]

60. The same reason the GATT/GATS have been signed

It's wanted by the multinationals and their extremely wealthy stockholders. It, in essence, puts our nation's laws under the authority of these treaties and the body it will set up to administer them.

[Doctor_J]

86. They want the entire world to be Bangladesh

and there seems to be no one here who can stop them.

[tabasco]

62. Fuck The Armys?

Damn if I know.

[Chan790]

65. Free Trade Agreements. n/t

[Chan790]

63. Because he's a dirty free-trader with poor economic domestic policies.

So is Hillary.

Can we please get a Democratic nominee for President that isn't a filthy free-trader?

[donheld]

68. Because he has had his orders from the Central Banks of the world

and he as their puppet must approve.

[Douglas Carpenter]

69. It keeps the unions in line, wage demands down and profit margins up. Who doesn't want that?

[cali]

74. It doesn't matter how much evidence one posts about how bad this is

certain types will deny, deny, deny.

Ugh.

[idwiyo]

77. K&R

[Octafish]

91. He wants to work after he leaves office.

"You can play ball and good things can happen to you get a big pot of gold at the end of the Wall Street rainbow or you can do your job be aggressive and face personal ruin...We really need to rethink how we govern and how regulate." -- Neil Barofsky

http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-barofsky-2012-8