Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumWhy Is Obama Shoving TPP Down Our Throats ?
There must be some reason motivating the President... Could he have just been brainwashed by the Corpratocracy, just as the Wall Street Banksters bent his ear ?
https://m.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)The word is COMPLICIT
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... after building an incredible legacy as POTUS, after enacting real change despite the unprecedented obstructionism of the GOP, after rebuilding an economy that was in shreds after Dubya's presidency, after bringing the country closer to universal healthcare than it's ever been, after championing the rights of LGBTs, women, minorities, etc., after restoring international respect for the US that had been all but destroyed by the previous administration, Obama is hoping to undo that legacy by screwing Americans and going down in history as the president who fucked the working class before leaving office.
Does that make ANY sense to anyone? Seriously?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)True Dough
(17,305 posts)And I'm not religious either. But I'm buying what you're selling!
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)ellenfl
(8,660 posts)lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)LakeVermilion
(1,042 posts)That is why its an up or down vote. He must have agreed to the vote for other concessions in the TPP. Privately, he might be counting on a down vote to have parts of the TPP renegotiated, but he agreed that he would take the TPP to Congress with his support.
So far, I consider his support to be luke warm. He might be saying the words, but I don't catch his spirit in the presentation.
napi21
(45,806 posts)Compromise to get something he feels is more important and behind the scenes work to get it defeated.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Pluvious
(4,313 posts)... Just asking wtf could really be going on.
Please do not miss characterize my comments.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Nitram
(22,822 posts)Just don't blame Obama for trying to to improve working conditions and living standards in Asia, while opening markets to US products.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)ashtonelijah
(340 posts)And, knowing the man that Barack Obama is, I think the most likely explanation is just that: He believes it would be best for the country, that it would be good for the economy, that it would be good for trade, and that it would be good for global relations.
The idea that, now, at the end of his presidency, he's suddenly been bought off by Wall Street is laughable. Nope. He just actually genuinely believes, as a matter of policy, that TPP would be good for the country.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . every member of this board would be up in arms!
reznor73
(17 posts)I keep reading TPP is bad without much data to support why it's bad. I'm not saying it's good - but the one reason I've come across is that Obama is worried about China's influence in that region and the low labor standards that China has could be accepted by all the countries in the TPP.
I work in IT and keep up with trends in computing - frankly speaking, I think manufacturing is dead even without outsourcing. It's all becoming fully automated and technology is introducing disruptive changes that will further damage service / manufacturing jobs (driverless cars, 3d printing isn't the stuff of SciFi anymore).
Why is TPP bad?
forest444
(5,902 posts)ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) allows a foreign corporation or even individual investor (many of them criminals outright) to skip the U.S. court system entirely and sue the U.S. or local and state governments before a panel of private arbitrators.
These Roman-style tribunals would be hand-picked corporate lobbyists who are not subject to conflict of interest or most other ethics rules that judges would be. They would still, in many cases, have full access to the courts as well (double dipping).
The risk is that these foreign investors can use these kangaroo courts to challenge any regulation or other government decision that the foreign investor just does not like. All they'd have to do is think of an argument for why the decision somehow violated its right to fair and equitable treatment or why it might reduce its expected profits and its got a case.
These decisions dont, in themselves, overturn the law, regulation or decision that was challenged. But if the country loses a case and wants to keep the decision that was challenged, it has to pay a large (politically scandalous) fine. Government will often abide just to avoid that. Often, just threatening the case is enough for the proposed law or regulation to be withdrawn.
Some well-known examples?
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): In the Metalclad case, a U.S. corporation sued Mexico over a local governments decision to deny a permit to operate a toxic waste dump. Local citizens felt the dump would pollute their water supply and petitioned their government to deny the permit. Metalclad won more than $15 million.
NAFTA: In the Methanex case, a Canadian company sued the U.S. Government over Californias decision to prohibit the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline. Although Methanex lost the case, the state and federal government spent millions defending the case. Millions they would not have had to spend without ISDS: Methanex could not have brought the same complaint under U.S. domestic law.
Ecuador was recently ordered to pay more than $2 billion to Occidental Petroleum because it rescinded a concession (as is their right to do as a sovereign nation).
Phillip Morris famously sued Uruguay because it's smoking cessation programs were successful (Uruguay had the highest cancer death rate in Latin America). The ISDS, to their credit, ruled in Uruguay's favor - but after 3 years and tens of millions in legal fees for the small nation. Phillip Morris, nevertheless, has appealed - meaning the it's still in limbo.
Argentina had to pay hundreds of millions to Azurix, Suez, and Vivendi (privatized water outfits) because their concessions were terminated after failing to make most of the infrastructure investments they themselves had agreed to when the public water systems were privatized at fire sale prices. Argentina, of course, could not use the ISDS to sue them - just as the U.S. or state/local governments couldn't.
Even in Europe, a Swedish corporation is using ISDS to sue Germany over its decision to phase out nuclear power; and a French company is suing Egypt over a number of labor market measures, including an increase in the minimum wage.
Can you imagine Colombian, Philippine or Vietnamese kleptocrats (including narcos) suing the U.S. Government - or your state or local government - to have common-sense regulation (even laws passed by Congress or your state legislature) overturned because they woke up one day and, on a lark, "felt" it might someday, maybe, impact their profits!
Trust me, China wants us to sign this.
2naSalit
(86,646 posts)forest444
(5,902 posts)It is what it is.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Asia will also have the fastest growing middle class in the world in the decades ahead. If the President was really out to screw the American people, he would give that market "the finger" and cede it to China. China, in turn, will use that economic leverage on Asian countries to weaken our influence in that area of the world. What did you people think he meant when he campaigned on his "pivot to Asia" ? Our economic future does not lie in the Middle East in the next 50 years. It lies in Asia.
FairWinds
(1,717 posts)the ISDS parts are bad enough, but for me it is the TOTAL
absence of effective labor standards . .
The TPP has very similar protections for labor rights as CAFTA -
which is to say, almost none.
This is what you get when you deliberately exclude labor and other stake holders
from trade agreement drafting and discussion.
Here are the basics . .
"Its been seven years since the AFL-CIO, together with six Guatemalan unions, first submitted a complaint to the Department of Labor. They accused Guatemala of failing to protect workers legally guaranteed rightsto association, collective bargaining, and acceptable conditionsby not conducting inspections, registering unions, or ensuring compliance with court orders.
Only 2 percent of Guatemalas working population belongs to a union. It has become one of the most dangerous countries in the world for union activists. The AFL-CIO reported that 72 Guatemalan unionists had been murdered since CAFTA went into effect, as of August 2014, with near-total impunity for their assassins."
Demsrule86
(68,586 posts)knowing this.
Kathy M
(1,242 posts)"Penn Law professor Jacques DeLisle, who is also director of Penns Center for East Asian Studies, agrees that reactions to the TPP are, in effect, a Rorschach test on attitudes regarding trade. DeLisle adds that the argument in favor of the TPP is based in part on the classical theory of free trade, which holds that removing barriers to free trade is a good thing. However, he adds, there is [also] a measure of Realpolitik in the TPP a geopolitical argument that is fairly confrontational. This notion is that the success or failure of the TPP will go a long way toward determining who writes the fundamental rules of the global economy in the coming decades the United States or China Twitter .
Another major argument in favor of the TPP is that it would be the first free-trade pact between the United States and Japan the worlds third-largest economy, measured by nominal GDP, despite the ascension of China in recent decades. While the economic argument behind the TPP is central, it is also about strengthening ties between the U.S. and Japan, which has never been involved in a free-trade agreement with the United States, DeLisle notes. It is a suckers bet for the United States to underwrite the costs of security in the Asia-Pacific region while many of the economic gains in the region go to China. That could well become the case if the TPP fails, and China gets to write the trade rules of the future."
"In such a case, notes DeLisle, there could be a tug of war for who will be at the center of gravity the TPP versus the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a proposed free trade agreement between the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the six nations that have existing free trade agreements with ASEAN China, India, Japan, Australia, South Korea and New Zealand. Negotiations for RCEP were formally launched in 2012.
Beyond strengthening U.S. ties with Japan, the TPP also promises to bring stronger and closer ties between the U.S. and its other friends in the region, such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. DeLisle notes that these countries are more likely to believe that the U.S. wont disappear from the region in terms of playing a role in regional security if the U.S. shows itself to be fully committed to strengthening its economic ties in the region, via the TPP. DeLisle says that there has been some skepticism in the Asia-Pacific region regarding the U.S. governments talk about re-pivoting toward Asia, and some understanding that the U.S. is resource-constrained because of costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The rest at , which is long article http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-a-battle-to-re-write-global-economic-rules/
yea I know Wharton , thought was good read though ....... I am not for or against TPP ,I am more for what is best for country in the long term
Zambero
(8,964 posts)If we do not weigh in on options that govern international trade policy, others will rush in and do it for us, and it will be done to their advantage and not ours. Also, certain environmental considerations such as activities that affect climate change are frequently mentioned.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Is a puzzlement.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Because he believes it's the best thing to do, for the reasons that he's outlined with his usual clarity on several occasions.
His main reasons, if I'm not mistaken, having to do with China -- the argument going that either we set the terms and framework for trade in the region or else China will.
As with most policy questions, it's all about expectations. I don't think Obama has nefarious, hidden reasons for supporting the TPP. I think he supports it for the reasons he's clearly explained.
One can agree with him or not. It's not necessary to invoke hidden agendas and conspiracies.
I happen to disagree with him, although his China angle gives my strong conviction some pause.