By Pushing the TPP, Obama is Repeating the Mistakes of NAFTA

[marmar]

Published on Jan 6, 2014

David Bacon: Obama's push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP) demonstrates his 2008 campaign pledge to oppose NAFTA-style free trade agreements was just lip service

See more videos: http://therealnews.com

[Fumesucker]

1. NAFTA wasn't a mistake, it was quite deliberate

[MannyGoldstein]

2. As is the TPP

Sociopathy.

[pa28]

6. Yes the phrase "repeating a mistake" implies an accident.

Obama knows exactly what he as doing and why.

[Dustlawyer]

14. My 1st thought, exactly!

[L0oniX]

39. ...also my first thought.

[bvar22]

48. Thank You. NAFTA was NOT a mistake.

It was calculated... and deliberate.
Obama is not making another "mistake".
He is continuing an Anti-LABOR, Anti-Working Class POLICY established by the
Koch Brother funded DLC when they bought the Democratic Party Leadership in the early 90s.


Ross was right, but Bill was smooth.

[yourout]

3. No......this one is WAY worse.

NAFTA was god aweful bad.

TTP would be mind numbingly, cataclysmic bad. NAFTA x10

His NAFTA talk was not lip service.....it was a flat out lie.

[villager]

4. But he's a corporatist -- of course he is.

n/t

[Barack_America]

5. Let's just cut the shit and announce we're returning to a feudal system.

For god's sake, what more can they take from us with these fucking deals?

[sabrina 1]

25. Don't ask. Look at what they've done to Europe if you want to know how much worse it can get

if they are not stopped. Europe, a First World continent just a short time ago until they brought their thieving Austerity policies there and took away the sovereignty of countries like Ireland, Greece among others. Now they are BUYING the 'assets' of European countries. They are like an invading army only MORE SUCCESSFUL by collapsing the economies first and then moving in like vultures to buy up these countries' assets at bargain basement prices.

Just as they have been doing in Third World countries for decades.

It is EVIL, and it is SHOCKING that any Democrat would support this, that would not be OUTRAGED at the very suggestion.

[dgibby]

52. Just read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins

if you want to know how the world ends. It's a blueprint for what's happening here and in Europe. The Kochs and their bought and paid for politicans won't be happy until they won the world dand everything in it.

[happyslug]

28. I wish this was a return to the Feudal System, the lower 90% had rights under Feudalism

The attacks on Feudalism over the last 00 years has been to justify ending the rights peasants and the rest of the lower 90% of the population had under it. Yes, peasants had to work for their masters, but their masters had to make sure they had adequate housing, food and the tools to do their work. The push for the last 400 years (Accelerating over the last 200 years) has been to take away those rights the peasants had in exchange for "Freedom". Freedom to set your own wages, but only if agreed to by your master, if your master decided to hire someone else and starve you out, that became legal ONLY with the abolition of feudalism.

Peasants had rights, and often fought for them. Starting with England you saw the decline in these rights during the Reign of Henry VIII (The Reformation started out as a religious reform movement, but quickly became a movement to take land from the Catholic Church and give it to the elite of Northern Europe, when the Peasants made a move to make it a true reform movement and increase their rights, they were smashed on orders of Martin Luther for example). The Reformation became popular with the ruling elite of Europe, for it meant taking land from the Catholic Church and giving it to themselves. Henry VIII, at first opposed the Reformation, but then did what was happening in Europe in areas that embraced Lutheranism, and did the same, giving former church land to his fellow nobles and himself (and when he later re-embraced Catholicism, he made no effort to return those lands, a policy followed by his Daughter Queen Mary. Queen Elizabeth decided NOT to embrace Catholicism, and left the lands alone).

The Ownership of land that occurred in the 1500s was NOT enough for England. In the 1600s they went after the remaining common lands, lands peasants depended on for care of their animals (and the use of which was restricted by Religious restrictions, that the Government decided to ignore to justify taking these common laws). To get rid of Cromwell's New Model Army, England even abolished its Guilds (some survived but as shadows of what they had been) and gave as many as wanted to go, a free passage to New England.

After the peasants were suppressed in England the foreclosure movement expanded to Scotland in the late 1600s and 1700s (and killed the Highlands opposition to the British Crown, by moving most of them out). During the Crimea war, recruiters went to the Highlands to look for volunteers, and were met with "Baa Bas etc", for it had been the policy of England to move out the rural peasants of the highlands and replace then with Sheep. Thus the surviving highlanders by baaing were telling the Ruling Elite, for 200 years you wanted sheep not men, so now that you want soldiers, recruit the sheep,

History is written by the winners, and from the 1500s till the 1930s, that was the ruling elite and what they wrote was attacks on Feudalism for some aspects of Feudalism lasted into the 20th Century, and it interfered with the ruling elite making money for it meant workers and peasants had rights and the courts would enforce them at times (and only at times, for the Judges in those courts were also members of the Ruling Elite, thus you do not hear of the law, still on the books in most states, that if you plant a crop on rented land, the landlord can NOT kick off the tenant till the crop is in, worse rent is due only at the end of one year lease UNLESS you pay monthly rent. That last rule making the rule that a lease is one month if rent is paid monthly is only the product of the last 1800s and in many states just a Judge made law, NOT a law passed by the State Legislature).

Unless it was agreed otherwise, prior to the mid 1800s the law was that employees were employees for one year period (If you fire them early, you still had to pay the employee for the whole year salary). Thus peasants had to right to a year salary and the right to live in a rental home for a one year period, both concepts of Feudalism, survived till the late 1800s. The Crop belong to the tenant. These aspects of Feudalism are NOT mentioned for they helped the 90% of the population, not the 10% who were writing the books and the law.

Just pointing out a return to feudalism would be an IMPROVEMENT, and it is something the ruling elite do NOT want. What they want is the situation in the late Roman Empire, with the peasants having no rights, and looking upon slavery as a way to feed themselves and their family. The downside of this, is like the early mention of the Highlands of Scotland, people revolt, move away, or worse, join any invading army (Which is what many Roman Peasants did during the 400s, the Goths that took Rome in 410, left Italy a few years later, with more people then they went into Italy with, so many Roman Peasants joined them. The Goths became more Romans then the Romans as the 400s progressed but always retained their military force based on both the original Goths AND the Romans who had joined them in their march through Italy.

It took a few hundred years for Feudalism to take force in Europe, the Former Roman elite opposed it for it stripped them of power. With the invasion of the Vikings, Magyars and Moors in the 900s something had to be done to get the peasants to support the people ruling them. The Solution was Feudalism. The key was land ownership was tied in with defense. If you did NOT defend the area your land was in, you lost it to someone who would defend that land. The best defense was to protect the peasants, so walls to protect peasants started to appear (Walls from the Fall of the Western Roman Empire to the 900s tended to be for the Ruling elite only, Walls during the Roman Period appears to be more to keep peasants within the Empire then to keep people out).

The then new Feudal overlords took the position they primary role was Military and organized the peasants into militia units. This required the peasants to have a safe place for their families, their animals and crops, which the Feudal Lord did as part of his duties. The Feudal Lord also had to make sure the peasant militia was fit to fight, which including making sure they had enough food.

With the onset of Feudalism, Western Europe defeated all three of its invaders and by the 1000s capable of offensive operations (Thus the Crusades). This required offensive units, and that was the armored knight of the middle ages. Again the Feudal lord had to lead these knights, but each knight had to right to payment from enough peasants so the Knight could have the equipment and horses he needed. In exchange, the Knight was expected to protect those peasants. This worked out quite well, till the Black Death upset the economic system and the ruling elite decided the old system was NOT good enough for them, they wanted more (The Robin Hood Legends, which for safety sake was set by Troubadours in the reign of Richard I, appears to reflect a Peasant Revolt of the late 1300s during the reign of Richard II, is a story of peasants and the local Feudal Lord fighting over what duties each owned to each other. In many ways the Robin Hood Legends, even reached Europe by the 1400s, popular among peasants for it was a story of peasants fighting for their rights).

Side Note: King Richard II, was the son of King Edward III of England, and was King during the Black Death and its aftermath. He was Captured by his Enemy and died (Two stories survive of his death, he fell down some steps and broke his neck, the official story, or thrown out of a guard tower, a story popular with is supporters. Richard II was popular in England among the peasants, and as such had rally around him before his captured. After his death, people would claim they were King Richard II and lead revolts against his successors, for he was that popular and his successors were NOT. This became so much a problem that it became a Death Sentence to claim to be Richard II. No Trial you were just killed. Thus the Troubadours of the 1400s quickly realized that it was safer to talk about Richard I, dead around 1190, then Richard II dead 1399 and the Robin Hood Stories were moved to that earlier time period (and with the move Maid Marian and Friar Tuck were added to the story, again to differentiate it from the actual events that prompted the Robin Hood Stories that took place in the late 1300s, when many of those events remained in the story for that is what the Peasants wanted to hear).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

The Black Death (and the subsequent Mini Ice Age) reduced what could be produced in Europe. Everyone wanted someone else to take the loss, thus you had increase tensions between Peasants and Nobles in the 1400s and 1500s. This tension was one reason for the land reforms of the Reformation (But most such land reforms tended to benefit the ruling elite, the peasants who actually did the work on these lands, lost rights when the ownership switched from the Catholic Church to other people, thus the massive peasants revolts in England against Henry VIII when he did take over the Church's lands).

While you see some signs of Class Warfare during the Middle Ages, it is clearly local and kept under control till the Mini Ice Age and its reduction in crop production lead to demands from the ruling elite for more from the peasants. The then new "Middle Class" (What we would call "Upper Middle Class" in the US Today) also wanted more of the wealth of society. These two groups, the older Nobility and the Middle Class merged during the Reformation and stated the long process of ending all of those Feudal Duties one had if one was a owner of land. This started early in England as Sheep became a more important product then food in the 1200s, for English Sheep went to mills in Flanders to become cloth (The Hundred Year War between England and France, was NOT over Aquitaine or Normandy by Flanders and the wealth those mills produced and the War ended mostly do to the Mills moving to the Netherlands and the filling in of the main port for such wool and is replacement by Cities in the Netherlands).

Thus from the 1200s till the 1930s you saw a decline in the percentage of Wealth that went to the lower 90% of the population a Feudalism slowly disappeared and with it the rights 90% of the population had to a fair share of the economy. This reversed in the 1930s and from 1930 to 1980, the percentage of wealth that went to the lower 90% actually INCREASED. Since 1980 the pattern had returned to its pre-1930 movement of providing more and more wealth to the top 1% (1928 and 2008 have one thing in common, they are the years with the 99% had the LEAST percentage of the wealth of the Country).

We are NOT going in Feudalism, but Roman Style Slavery or Roman Style pseudo slavery of the late Western Roman Empire. That is much worse then Feudalism.

[Barack_America]

45. Wow. That was incredibly interesting.

And answers a question I had posed to myself earlier this morning whether the post WWII income equality and social safety net was really just an aberration.

We are a two parent working family with 2 young kids and have been getting some push-back lately from the older generation whether both of our careers are essential. They don't seem to understand my argument that they are, and not for our own personal enrichment, but for the ability to keep our family off the streets should something happen to one of us. They just can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that the social safety net has eroded so much there is no longer any guarantee that we would be "taken care of".

It may sound funny, but several years ago I stumbled on a copy of "The Quincunx" and it scared the shit out of me. I think it has forever altered my approach to wealth, spending, savings, etc. We really seem to be headed back in that direction.

[happyslug]

61. To a degree the 1930-1980 reduction is the economic pie being unfair is rare in history.

It was Government Policy, imposed by the Feds by the Congress elected in 1930 but passed as part of the New Deal in 1933, after the 1932 election of FDR (which also expanded the Democratic Majority in both the House and Senate). Many of these ideas had been kicked about since the 1890s (many had been part of the Democratic Platform of William Jennings Bryan in 1896). Herbert Hoover made the Comment that the New Deal was "Bryanism" without Bryan (William Jennings Bryan had died in 1926).

The Federal Government basically said it would encourage unionization, and unionization increased till 1948, when the GOP, having won control of the House in the election of 1946, passed the "Taft Hartley" act to reduce the "power" of the unions. It reduced the ability to organize thus unionization peaked in 1948 and started a slow but steady decline.

On the other hand the attacks on the Unions (and most of the Anti-Communists agitation post WWII, was aimed at the Unions more then the Communists for it was the UNIONS that business feared not the Communists) continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s (The GOP in 1964 were asked by George Wallace and his supporters to accept them, but the GOP demanded these southern Democrats accept the ending of Social Security, privatization of the TVA, and abolishment of the Wagner act, which George Wallace refused to do, thus George Wallace was forced to run as a third party candidate in 1968, he could NOT support the Democrats, because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and he could NOT support the GOP, for the GOP's insistence on abolishment of Social Security, the TVA and the Wagner Act).

The South was the most Anti-Union section of the Country, but also the poorest. If it was NOT for the Federal Government Military Spending in the South AND the nationalization of Credit (in the Sense Credit could be loaned anywhere in the US, something possible only after 1938, prior to that date, you had to raise money locally and that was hard to do outside of New York City and Chicago, through Detroit could do it for Automobiles, and Pittsburgh was the place to go for Steel, coal or any other metal or mineral exchange and loans based on those items).

Now, while the New Deal had a lot to do with strengthening the lower classes, the big weapon was the 90% top tax rate. The Democratic Congress elected in 1930, pushed the top rate to 63%, but only on any income over $ Million Dollars (The previous top rate had been 25%). In 1936 the top rate went to 79% over 5 Million Dollars, 77% over 1 million dollars. In 1941 it was 81% after the first 5 Million, and 79% over 1 million Dollars. 1942 the top rate was 88% but started at $200,000 dollars. In 1944 it went to 94% at $200,000. In 1946 it dropped to 91% at $200,000. 92% in 1952. 91% in 1954. In 1955 the point where the top rate kicked in was raised to $400,000. In 1964 the top rate was reduced to 77% (This was JFK;s plan to reduce the top rate). 70% in 1965 but starting at $200,000.

In 1977 the rates were adjusted for Inflation so it was set at $203,200

1979 Rate was still 70% but after the first $215,400

In 1982 Reagan dropped it down to 50% after the first $85,000, through Reagan did abolish Long Term Capital Gain Treatment. In 1987 it dropped to 38.5% on any income after the First $90,000. In 1988 the top rate dropped to 28.0% after the first $29,750 in income.

In 1990 the top rate was 28.0% after the first $30,950

In 1991 the top rate was 28.0% after the first $32,450

In 1992 the rate was 28.0% after the first $32,450

In 1992 the rate was 31.0% after the first $86,500

in 1993 the rate was 39.6% after the first $250,000 (This was the Clinton Tax increase).

In 1994 the rate was 39.6% after the first $250,000

In 1995 the rate was 39.6% after the first $256,500

In 1996 the rate was 39.6% after the first $263,750

In 1997 the top rate was 39.6% after the first $271,050

in 1998 the top rate was 39.6% after the first $278,450

In 1999 the top rate was 39.6% after the first $278,450

In 2000 the top rate was 39.6% after the first $288,350

In 2001 the Top rate was 39.1% after the first $297,350

In 2002 the top rate was 38.6% after the first $307,050

In 2003 the top rate was 35.0% after the first $311,950 (This was the first year of the Bush Tax cut, but see Capital gains below):

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

Please note, prior to 1982, people could claim what was then called "long term Capital Gain", If a person claimed "Long Term Capital Gain" he or she had to show he or she kept an asset for more then five years and the IRS would permit them to "disregard" 50% of any profit, i.e. you paid the top rate ONLY on 1/2 of anything that made money that you held onto for five or more years. This was to encourage long term investments, as oppose to speculation in the Stock Market. If you made a killing in the Stock Market speculating, the Government received 91% of your gain from 1946 to 1964, and 70% from 1965 to 1982. The Long Term Capital Gain had the role of discouraging speculation in favor of long term investments.

In 1997 Long Term Capital Gain came back, but this time as at 20% instead of the higher individual rates of 39.6%, In 2003 this was reduced to 15% (This was the real killer in the Bush Tax Cut, for it redefined long Term Capital gain to a shorter time period). Please remember most Capital Gain are earned by the top 20% of the populations, something like 99.3%. .7% is earned by people in the other 80% of the population (and most of that is their homes).

The huge decrease in the top tax rate, from the 35% for capital gains that was the case from Kennedy to Reagan, then to Reagan's 28% and then today's 15%, is a huge drop in income to the Government, AND a huge INCREASE in income for the top 20% of the population (and even larger increase for the top .1%). The lost of income has to be made up somewhere and it has been made up in the form of Treasury Bonds and taxes on the lower classes and inflation in the cost of items, while Income has fallen given the above attacks on the Unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

Now, while the 1930-1980 period sounds like an aberration, if you carefully at it, while it is an aberration, it is also the result of GOVERNMENT POLICY. The aberration was NOT how the economy is going, but that Government wanted the change, i.e. Government instead of supporting business and its goal of making themselves richer, the Government took on a policy of being against the accumulation of wealth and devised policy to discourage such accumulation of wealth AND adopted policies to encourage people to force they employers to pay them a fair wage (i.e. Unionization). Thus the aberration was not in how the economy was going, but Government's position on where the economy was going.

Side note: One of the reason for the Government's aberration was simple, the existence of the Soviet Union. No matter your position as to the Soviet Union being good or bad itself, it was a check on the US and Wall Street, for Wall Street feared a Soviet take over more then anything else. What Wall Street most feared is a repeat of 1917-1921. In 1919 Communist take over both Germany and Hungary , but both were defeated quickly. The rest of Europe had similar unrest, in the US you had the 1919 Steel Street and in 1921 the West Virginia Coal War. In the West Virginia coal war bombers and machine guns were used and the comment was had the coal miners had a company of infantry instead of 20,000 individuals they would have won the battle of Blair Mountain and Hanged the Sheriff on Mingo County West Virginia (The report as to having in infantry company is why many states passed laws, still on the books, making it a Criminal offense for people to do military training outside the National Guard or the Military). In both the General Strike of 1877 and the Homestead Strike of 1892, Strikers used a Civil War Cannon when the strike turned violent. In 1877 after the Philadelphia Militia had opened fire in Strikes in Pittsburgh, in 1892 when Carnegie Steel brought in Pinkerton Agents by barge. No Cannons were used in the 1919 Steel Strike or the 1921 West Virginian Coal War, for all the Cannons had been removed from both areas so they could not be used (In the 1900 Peking incident with the Boxers, a similar Bronze Cannon had been used successfully to defend the diplomatic areas of Peking from the Boxers, and it had been in the local rivers over 50 years by then, thus the fear such cannons would be used in urban strife had basis in fact).

The 1930s saw a return to such violence, but the reform of the Wagner Act gave the unions the ability to form unions without having to resort to violence, violence unleashed by the companies the unions were trying to unionized and those companies thought NOTHING of resorting to violence to put down such unionization efforts. The Wagner act and the refusal of several state governors to permit their National Guard to be used as union breakers, permitted the Unions to win unionization in the Courts not on the streets (and this is only when the vast majority of workers in the industry they were unionization wanted to join a union). In most cases on Strike Violence, it is the Company that resorts to it first, while claiming the strikers are intimidating non-strikers and thus the company must used violence to protect those non-strikers.

Thus, given the problems of 1873-1894 (The "The Long Depression&quot that continued and hit another high during the post WWI era of 1919-1921 and hit another high in the 1930s forced Wall Street to finally accept that to defeat unionization would be to invite in Communism, thus the decision was made to encourage Unionization as an effort to defeat communism. Now, when it appears that the unionization effort was being effective, Wall Street Turned against it, but not is a big way (it still feared Communism more), but that fear of Communism started to die out in the 1960s and thus you saw more and more attacks on unions, finally in 1982 Wall Street decided they no longer needed to feat the commies and full pressure was put against the unions and it has been a rapid down hill since Reagan

My father, a Union letter Carrier said that the then head of the AFL-CIO George Meany needed to call out a General Strike in Support of PATCO, when Reagan Fired them. That termination was a declaration of war against Labor, and Labor needed to respond and it failed to respond. The collapse of the US Steel Industry afterward was the first result of that failure. Labor has been on a down hill fall ever since and along with the reduction in taxation at the top, it had lead to a decline in wages among the bottom 80% of the population.

[historylovr]

54. +1. Thanks for pointing this out.

You are right, except that Richard II, son of Edward "The Black Prince" and Joan, 4th Countess of Kent, was the grandson of Edward III and was not born until after the Black Death. Otherwise I concur with most of your analysis. We are definitely not returning to Feudalism.

[happyslug]

59. I did write Richard II was the son of Edward III

And I know better, the "Black Prince" (Long Blond hair in solid black armor, just the image of the medieval Knight) died on a Crusade fighting with the Spanish against the Moors in Spain (Start of the long time Spanish-English alliance against France, just like England had to expect troubles with the Scots every time England Fought France during the middle ages, France had to worry about Spanish intervention).

The English-Spanish alliance, saw Henry VIII fighting for and with Spain in Southern France during his reign and maintaining that alliance was the reason he wanted to marry his brother's wife, after the death of his brother. Henry VIII obtain papal permission for that marriage, and later on when he wanted it annulled, the pope refused for he was dependent on Henry VIII's wife brother, King Charles V of Spain AND the Holy Roman Emperor (When the Empire was at its weakest, more a Title then any real power by the 1500s).

Queen Mary even married Phillip II of Spain to reestablish this alliance, but do to London being more attached to Northern Europe then Spain, the attempt did not last long.

The Amanda was less an attempt to "Conquer" England, then to Force Elizabeth back into the Spanish-English Alliance against the French (Through English dealings with the Dutch was another reason for the break with Spain).

The Spanish-English Alliance would reform in the early 1690s in the War of English Successor as France tried to used the over throw of James II as an excuse to invade Spanish Netherlands, something not only Spain opposed but so did the Dutch and the English (This is long after the end of the Dutch war for Independence, which Spain accepted in 1648 with the treaty of Westphalia that ended the 30 year war). This broke up again in the next war, as France tried to make King Louis XIV of France also the King of Spain. Spain supported the dual monarchy idea, Netherlands, Austria and England opposed it. As a result France agreed that the King of Spain and the King of France will never be held by the same person, but gave Austria what had been Spanish Netherlands.

The Alliance reformed again, when Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808 and installed his brother as the Spanish King. This was Wellington's great war against Napoleon through the two did not meet in Spain. This restoration of Alliance also affected the US. Wellington needed a secure source of grain to feed his troops, Spain and Portugal had no grain to spare and England already had Irish Grain for itself, thus Wellington turned to New England and that was his source of grain for his troops even after the US declared war with England in 1812. That trade ended with Napoleon's defeat in the Battle of Nations in 1814 and did NOT restart during the 100 days of 1815 for Wellington's army, then in what would become Belgium in 1830 (formerly Austrian Netherlands) but in 1815 was part of the Netherlands.

Since 1815, Spain has been a loyal ally of England, often unofficial, but understood (the same goes with Portugal and England). At first this was against any French maneuver, then to prevent both countries from joining with the Germans against France (Some Spanish units fought with the Nazis during WWII and Spain kept lights on so Gibraltar was always light during WWII). After WWII Spain saw England as its best ally, more to get the US to ally with Spain then anything England could do after WWII). Thus the Spanish-English Alliance survives to this day, both are members of NATO. Just think about it, the alliance started with the Black Prince.

Yes the Spanish-English alliance had some problems during WWII, but that was ignored after WWII for the UK decided it needed a loyal Spanish ally, not an isolated Country looking for allies. Spain was NOT permitted to Join NATO till Franco was gone, but both the US and the UK had strong alliance with Franco's Spain after WWII.

[truedelphi]

56. This is one amazing post.

Very excellent information, and considering the range of the info, rather concise.

I'd love to see you make that an entire OP - and please make sure you have made it part of your journal here at DU. I would hate that info to be lost.

[djean111]

7. Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do; no mistake from his point of view, at all.

Didn't you know that ALL campaign blather is allowed to just be lip service?
Since this is so, and is evidently okay, maybe we could skip the blather part and less money would be spent.
Although they likely love spending lots of money.

[solarhydrocan]

9. Obama's Promise to renegotiate NAFTA

You're right. If they are just going to lie, why stretch it out for 2 years.

They must have laughed real hard when they called Canada and said they were just kidding.

The Facts About ‘NAFTA-Gate’
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/the-facts-about-nafta-gate/

Friday, Feb. 29: CTV cites "reports" that a NAFTA discussion may have occurred in Chicago, not Washington. It also reports that it included Austan Goolsbee, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and the senior economic adviser to the Obama campaign...

[Egalitarian Thug]

13. Oh no, we can't do that. Political advertising is one of the media's biggest welfare programs. n/t

[Skittles]

8. no mistakes; it is all by design

[grahamhgreen]

10. Make your phone calls people:)

[L0oniX]

40. The NSA agrees.

[grahamhgreen]

47. And tell them to call too!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

11. You can bet the Trilateral Commission is pushing for this.

[L0oniX]

41. The one the Clintons are members of?

So uhm what about the Bilderberg Group? or the WTO

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. The Trilateral Commission predates all of those....

They're the post-WWII guys (Yes, the clubhouse used to say, "No Girlz Allowed&quot that brought us cars made in Japan that were superior to cars made in America AND Made it cheap to chug them by ship over the largest ocean on the planet.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

50. BTW: You know Carter AND Cheney are members too.

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. Not just repeating it, declaring it a success and making it much bigger and far worse.

[rhett o rick]

58. From the eyes of the.01% NAFTA was a success and the TPP isnt a mistake. Ask H. Clinton-Sachs. nm

[jsr]

15. Well, it's on the to-do list from corporate headquarters.

[L0oniX]

42. DC corporate headquarters.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. K&R

[WillyT]

17. K & R !!!

[jtuck004]

18. Not a mistake. He's sick. He's done caught that affluenza... n/t

[MrsKirkley]

19. It seems that President Obama doesn't want good paying jobs to return to the US after all.

[BrotherIvan]

20. Why is there always so much cheerleader silence on this issue?

Is this finally something for which there is no excuse? Or are they baking some up right now?

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Still doing focus groups to find a fantasy that resonates

with us Smurfs.

[BrotherIvan]

22. He's utterly powerless when it comes to things like single payer

or BP clean up, but man, put a job-gutting pro-corporate bill in front of this administration and it runs on greased rails.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[sabrina 1]

26. It's definitely a difficult one to come with talking points for. But they will. I'm sure the

best Contractor is working on it and working overtime. They hire think tanks to get those talking points. They are later than usual with this one though which only goes to show how truly bad it is.

Watching the political theater around it I'm betting it's a done deal. So much money to be made for all the 'right' people.

[BrotherIvan]

30. Yes and once it's finished we'll be told it is liberals who are somehow at fault

We're just purists who want ponies! Or racists. Or haters living in a fantasy world. Now go vote you goddamned hippies!

[pampango]

34. Ouch! "Cheerleader". You make me sound so deep and analytical. That aside, some old eastern time

zone folks are asleep by the time this OP was posted.

By replacing NAFTA trading rules with TPP's rules, we are repeating the mistakes of NAFTA? Of course, if we do nothing, we are continuing to live with the mistakes of NAFTA, the WTO and the 'free trade' agreements we already have with most of the TPP countries. I thought that renegotiating (replacing) NAFTA was what most of us wanted.

That said, if the provisions on labor rights and the environment are not any better or more enforceable than in existing trade agreements, I see not reason to approve the TPP.

[Marr]

37. I was just thinking the same thing.

Odd-- they're nowhere to be found on this issue.

[Change has come]

51. Talking points will be released in the morning! n/t

[AdHocSolver]

23. Implementation of the TPP would hand total political power to the 1 percent...

...which already has almost total control of the world's economies.

If this goes through, say goodbye to democracy, and say hello to a revived feudalism worse than that of the Dark Ages.

Why would this feudalism be worse? Because the new feudal lords will control a technology more invasive and all consuming that the pharaohs, Roman tyrants, and emperors couldn't even imagine.

Methods of spying on opponents, control of education, mind control through mass propaganda techniques and techniques of mass killing of opponents now becoming robotized with automated drones. We must not forget the altering of living organisms through genetic modification in which the 1 percent invest heavily.

One might wonder why the 1 percent invest heavily in this technology while, at the same time, deny access to the benefits of this technology to the masses.

There is only one logical answer to this question: They intend to apply this technology to selective elimination of large numbers of "useless" people by attrition. If a group does not contribute to the wealth and power of the 1 percent (the "moochers" and "takers&quot , they will be "helped" to disappear.

Side note to members of the Tea Party: When the 1 percent have gained absolute power, you will find that you are no longer needed and are expendable.

[dgibby]

53. North Korea comes to mind. n/t

[nikto]

24. TPP is another Global Ripoff like NAFTA

Economic Royalty behaving badly
and hurting The World for their profit.

[countmyvote4real]

27. One of my NY Senators responds to my TPP concerns...

Dear Mr. X:
Thank you for writing to voice your concerns over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. Like you, I believe free trade agreements must be negotiated to reflect the priorities of American jobs and our long term economic prosperity.

As you know, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has the potential to increase exports from the United States and, in turn, create jobs and grow our economy. The countries involved in the TPP negotiations represent some of the fastest growing economies in the world and over 40% of world trade. Many New York industries would benefit from lowered trade barriers in these nations.

However, when considering any trade deal, it is equally important that any trade agreement is fair and right for America. First and foremost, any trade agreement must adequately protect American workers and industry from competing with unfair and unjust practices in foreign countries. That is why I drafted a letter, which was signed by 30 Senators, to urge the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to protect the dairy industry from uncompetitive practices in Canada and New Zealand. Congress must ensure that any trade agreements include provision to combat unfair practices and maintain strong intellectual property rights, labor rights, anti-currency manipulation, and environmental standards.

I have long championed legislation to ensure both free and fair trade. I worked with a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act (S.1114), which would enhance oversight of currency exchange rates, crack down on unfair trade practices and level the playing field for New York manufacturers. Last Congress, I co-sponsored the Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion Act (S.1133), which would create the enforcement necessary at Customs and Border Protection to combat trade cheats and provide a fair playing field for US manufacturers.

As you may know, texts of trade agreements are traditionally classified during live negotiations. The text of the agreement has not been finalized and Members of Congress have not yet seen draft texts. However, the USTR will release summaries of policies discussed during negotiations prior to the public comment period. When those summaries are released, I will review them closely to determine the agreement’s effects on New York jobs and industries.

The office of the United States Trade Representative intends to complete negotiations this year. As a member of the Committee on Finance, with jurisdiction over trade agreements, I will closely examine any trade agreements impact on New York businesses and families.

Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please feel free to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter.


Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

MY TAKE...
Senator Schumer's office always gets back to me with a response. Not always one to my liking, but it's a slight revelation into the hidden process. More disappointing, I find that Senator Gillabrand's office does not seem to bother with a response at all other than the auto bot "Thanks for contacting..."

[MannyGoldstein]

29. The Senator From Wall Street

Who fought like a sonofabitch to keep a 15% tax rate for hedge fund managers.

I wonder how he'll vote on the TPP?

[countmyvote4real]

31. I hear you, loud and clear.

Like Governor KrispyKreme, CS does go out of his way to obfuscate his positions while pretending to matter to anyone but Obama's second electoral tapestries.

[AdHocSolver]

32. The problem with the U.S. economy is NOT the lack of exports.

The problem is too many imports of goods formerly manufactured in this country by Americans.

The TPP will only exacerbate the problems with job losses and the trade deficit.

Why would China, for example, buy goods from the US that they can manufacture more cheaply in their own country without incurring shipping costs?

From the letter:

"As you may know, texts of trade agreements are traditionally classified during live negotiations."

Translation: "We want to keep the masses from knowing how we are selling out their interests."

From the letter: "I will review them closely to determine the agreement’s effects on New York jobs and industries."

Question: "How about considering the effects of this agreement on the rest of American jobs and industries?"

[Populist_Prole]

55. Sheesh! They're still pushing that trite "export" canard that failed the smell test 20 years ago!

Given the massive imbalance between imports and exports, more trade will lead to just bigger deficits despite any increase in exports due to the imports burgeoning large yet. I mean, if we lose on every deal, it's not like we're going to make up for it in sheer volume.

"Why would China, for example, buy goods from the US that they can manufacture more cheaply in their own country without incurring shipping costs?"

Exactly! Also, they have colleges in China and elsewhere too, and so we'll be competing with others with the same education as us but they're willing to work for a fraction of what we can. Of course, third-way trade apologists like to claim export oriented jobs are more lucrative then the jobs lost through imports; but you see, they ( the paper-pusher managerial and finance class and their puditry ) will defend this be defending themselves and "playing god" in choosing who the winners and losers will be....and the losers aint gonna' be them.

Oh, and one more thing free-trade shills. Stop with the Boeing/aircraft exports ballyhoo. It's abstract horseshit. Boeing has a veritable shitload of of major subassemblies manufactured in China, as they demand this as a condition of sale, and to know doubt get their own aircraft industry to full maturity.

[truedelphi]

57. My small publishing company exports to various Pacific Rim places all the time

What our company needs is fair shipping prices, a policy that existed UNTIL the Democratic party had the majority in the House and Senate, circa Jan 2007, and then immediately created legislation that upped the prices for using the USPS for small businesses, while rewarding the major businesses with discounts.

I don't need the TPP - I need an end to Corporate-control over their elected lackeys in Congress.

[TL_dem68]

35. Happily, one of my senators is against this...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/19/warren-on-trans-pacific-partnership-if-people-knew-what-was-going-on-they-would-stop-it/

The biggest problem with TPP is that we will no longer be a sovereign nation. This creates a supranational corporate owned legal structure, which will solidify and make worse what is already in place (since GATT).

The implications are far worse than the job losses themselves.

We will no longer be self governing. Anything that interferes with corporate profits, even the preventing of for profit schools, is subject to litigation over seen by corporate friendly judges. Our tax dollars will go to settlements, if we dare to interfere with profits.

Ironic that conservatives see globalization as "communist" threat, when it's actually closer to fascist (merger of corporate and government power). Except this time, corporations are the governing body.

[sabrina 1]

46. I knew that was from Schumer. That letter is almost comical. Laughable actually.

I've never received any responses from Schumer. Maybe he didn't like my questions which were always politely stated. I did meet him once and was not impressed at all.

Secret deals with Foreign Corps, Congress kept in the dark until it's a done deal. That letter demonstrates the sheer arrogance of these Corporatists and their obvious disdain for the intelligence of the voters.


If I were a comedian doing stand up comedy on politics I would use that letter and I bet it would get major laughs without adding or subtracting anything.

[Enthusiast]

33. Stop this insane TPP!

[xchrom]

36. du rec.

[99Forever]

38. This is what we get from...

... voting for corporate owned liars.

Never again.

[L0oniX]

43. Yes ...but our party sucks less.

[99Forever]

44. But of course.

At least the Teapublicans are out front with their hate for American workers, instead of being two-faced about it.

[raouldukelives]

60. Enjoy it kids. Its our legacy to you. We'll try not to let the climate change hit us on our way out.

Oh, and your welcome. It was literally the least we could do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. If that's the case with TPP, then no doubt Obama will veto it. Won't he?