2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy the Democrats Need to Sink the TPP
HAROLD MEYERSON
The American Prospect
Problem is, this sets up the Democrats for a no-win debate at their forthcoming convention. Of the various platform planks he’s pushed that the drafting committee didn’t approve, Sanders has made clear that the one he’s likeliest to fight for is this one. He understands, I suspect, that such causes as Medicare for All and a carbon tax are a bridge too far for the current Democratic Party, just as he understands that opposition to the TPP is a bridge that most Democratic politicians and activists would be relieved to see their party traverse.
Hillary Clinton needs this fight like a hole in the head. Should the issue come to the convention floor, not only will Sanders’s delegates vote to oppose the TPP, but hundreds of Clinton delegates may feel compelled to vote that way as well. Their ranks will include leaders or members of unions or environmental groups long on record against the TPP, and members of Congress from districts across the post-industrial Midwest. No less a Clinton supporter than former Congressman Barney Frank, whom party head Debbie Wasserman Schultz appointed to chair the convention’s Rules Committee, has repeatedly argued that Obama should abandon his quest to get the TPP ratified.
Worse yet, imagine the debate that would ensue at the convention. TPP opponents will cast the document as a vestige of the party’s Wall-Street-influenced ancien regime, which crafted the deals that enriched major investors and consigned the nation’s industrial workforce to history’s ash heap. Whatever the deal’s defenders may say—it won’t be as bad as earlier ones? We’re against it but we can’t forsake the president?—will hardly help Clinton and the Democrats in Ohio and Pennsylvania this fall.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)So, Democrats should support her in the November election, it seems to me. Our presumptive nominee agrees with the majority of Democrats on this:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35974-clinton-commits-no-tpp-fundamentally-rethink-trade-policies
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I don't trust the flip-flop, but I will hope for the best and lobby against the worst. It does look like a pile of suck.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)She said what I quoted. That's what I know.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)
1. Hillary wouldn't win her second term, if she did. Bernie has raised the consciousness
level of too many Democrats and others to allow such a thing to happen without
fighting back.
2. The Clintons are now people of wealth. They don't need any more of it. Their family
will be comfortable for generations to come.
3. It's her last chance to do something that will really help to improve the lot of average
Americans. I don't think she is going to throw this chance away. She may or may not
succeed, but she is going to try. I think she will want history books to write positively
about what she has done (or tried to do) for America as president.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
Cal33
(7,018 posts)which one it is. 
I just meant I don't intend to let her forget her promise, if she's even inclined to.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)spot on...
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)there was no release of Wall St. speech transcripts as I would bet money they were chock-full of pro-TPP language.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)n/t
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)No Supreme Court nominations.
No vote on 7 1/2 years of work on progressive trade policy.
The so-called "lame duck" sessions are opportunities to take fracturing partisanship out of the equation and pass some legislation that is good for all of America.
Our representatives voting is pretty much a good thing, isn't it?
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahaha
thx for the laugh
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Obama has already shut down the most vocal critics like Sanders and Warren.
Now that we have seen the finalized TPP agreement, no new arguments, just same tired rhetoric from before we could read it.
I know, I know - "trade bad." Given our constituencies, many Democrats cannot go wrong taking that simplistic, self-destructive position in the face of ongoing, inevitable globalization and the nature of our capitalist economic system.
Please let the truly progressive Democrats who are willing to fight for our future make an argument and take a vote.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)"The document is classified. Only members of Congress and staffers with security clearance can access it. And they can't make copies or even carry their own handwritten notes out the door."
always start off with classifying and restricting access to said trade agreement because it's a 'good deal'... that's the ticket!
then the public was able to get involved.... and there's this:
"Despite the Obama administration’s concerted push to finish both TTIP and its Asian counterpart, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), before the presidential election in November, support for trade deals are plummeting in the US: a recent poll showed that only 18% of the public support TTIP, compared to 53% in 2014."
"But what has mattered more is merely the ability for the public to see what’s in these agreements. While there were many civil society groups protesting the deals from the start, it wasn’t until WikiLeaks published draft versions of TPP that public sentiment turned against it. The US trade representative even admitted at the time that the administration knew if the public found out what is in these trade deals, public opposition would be significant."
but please.... continue trying to carry water on your played out, fully debunkable premise....
one could easily read that you are advocating for decreased public discourse and transparency on trade deals...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We can all read it now - but all you have is old material!
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)"The widespread anti-TPP sentiment that was so prominent in the presidential primaries will play a similar role in congressional races. Pressure on Democrats to support their president will be somewhat diluted by their ability to claim solidarity with their nominee — whose anti-TPP stance will remain clear. Republicans who have voted pro-trade in accord with a longstanding party position will feel pressure to align with their nominee, especially in close races where their Democratic opponents take the same — i.e., popular — side of the issue as the head of their ticket.
In Poltico, Paul Blustein makes a kindred argument:
Of all the messages emanating from the American electorate in the 2016 campaign, popular hostility toward trade agreements is one of the most resounding. It is also perhaps the only grievance that unites left and right"
even high viability surrogates chime in:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ahead-democratic-platform-meeting-warren-urges-opposition-tpp-trade-deal-n605151
"Warren, a potential Clinton vice presidential pick and longtime TPP critic, cut a five-minute video message that will be sent to members of the liberal group CREDO Action, whom she thanks for "keeping up the pressure to stop the Trans Pacific Partnership."
"Congress will have to vote straight up or down on TPP, no amendments, no chance to strip out things like ISDS, and that's why I'm counting on CREDO members like you to help me fight to stop the TPP over the next few months," Warren says, referring to the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision.
Warren makes no mention of the platform fight, but opponents of the TPP are likely to view the message as encouragement.
"Supporters of the TPP want you to believe this deal is about America's role in setting the rules of international trade. But here's the problem, TPP isn't about helping American workers set the rules, it's about letting giant corporations rig the rules," Warren says."
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The fact is you don’t get a vote on automation, on whether there’s going to be a new generation of computers or robots that might replace your job. You don’t really get to vote on globalization. It’s a factor of the containerization of shipping, the spread of broadband, the integration of economies like China and Eastern Europe that used to be closed and are now part of the global economy.
You do get a vote on trade agreements. So trade agreements become the vessel into which people pour their very legitimate concerns about job security, wage stagnation and income inequality.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)there it is... the cherry pick aspect kicks in... we going to travel that 'road' now?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The subtitle and gist of your WaPo article link:
A chorus of commentators say that the race has delegitimized the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Let's think about that.
Conclusion of the article:
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)n/t
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We do get to vote on how forces like globalization operate, and how we deal with issues like automation as a society.
But the elites would prefer for us to believe that we all helpless victims of man-made forces of nature.
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)"We can't turn our back on the world" and "it's going to happen anyway" is about all I ever hear. No one ever explains how corporations sueing the government because they passed laws that happen to cut into their profits or jobs going to the country with the lowest wages and least regulation is a good thing. TransCanada is sueing for $15 billion because we didn't let then build a pipeline in OUR country. Is this something you want to see more of? Detroit is a ruin in large part because Detroit jobs moved to Mexico because they can pay the workers much less. Is this something you want for your community? We need trade that benefits everyone. Not just stockholders.
If TPP prevents a race to the bottom, please show me that provision. I have yet to see it because it's not there.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)thx for that! 
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Put simply, ISDS is a mechanism to promote good governance and the rule of law. ISDS protects basic rights — such as protection against discrimination and expropriation without compensation — akin to those enshrined in U.S. law and the Constitution. We already provide these protections at home to foreign and domestic investors under U.S. law. That’s why — although we are party to 51 agreements with ISDS — the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case. Our trade agreements ensure the same kinds of protections to U.S. businesses and investors operating abroad, where they face a heightened risk of discrimination and bias.
Many, many more new arguments at: https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-eddc8d87ac73#.33qacj2ik
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)"So the most consequential parts of the deal would actually undermine the free flow of goods and services by expanding some protectionist, anti-competitive policies sought by global corporations.
“We already have trade agreements with six of the 11 countries. Canada and Mexico — our two biggest trading partners — are in there. The tariffs are almost zero [with those countries] anyhow,” Dean Baker, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told The Intercept. “What’s in the deal? Higher patent and copyright protection! That’s protectionism.”
The U.S. International Trade Commission’s own report on the agreement notes that “few tariffs remain between the United States and its existing [free trade agreement] partners,” which compose a majority of TPP countries.
It’s true that past trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have dramatically lowered tariffs, freeing companies to move manufacturing jobs out of the country. And as a result, the very notion of trade agreements has left many Americans understandably skeptical.
Concerns that the TPP would lead to even more job losses “are real and I think that the political discussion is responding to those concerns from both parties,” Melinda St. Louis, director of international campaigns at Public Citizen, told The Intercept. But, she noted, “I do think that the trade aspects of the TPP are a small part of it. It’s only six of 30 chapters that have to do with trade and goods really at all. The rest of it is about setting global rules.”
One of the proposed TPP rules, for instance, involves the expansion of copyrights, which would impose anti-competitive costs on economies.
The agreement has been harshly criticized by humanitarian organizations like Doctors Without Borders, which deploys thousands of doctors overseas to offer medical care to those who cannot afford it, because it expands monopoly protections and patents for various pharmaceutical drugs.
For instance, the agreement requires the countries involved to offer eight years of market exclusivity, or five years plus other mechanisms, to assure “comparable market outcome” for a class of pharmaceutical products called biologics. These cutting-edge, biologically manufactured drugs have been used to treat Crohn’s disease, arthritis, and other common ailments — and expanding market exclusivity means there is less room for competitors to produce lower-cost generic drugs to compete.
“We do not have a position on the TPP as a whole, we’re not anti-trade, we’re a humanitarian organization,” Judit Rius Sanjuan, a legal policy adviser for Doctors Without Borders explained. “Some of the provisions in the text will also make it much more difficult to have innovation, because they create patent monopolies for big pharmaceutical companies.”
The TPP also seeks to strengthen and extend monopoly patents for the entertainment industry.
In a victory lap early this year, Disney CEO Bob Iger wrote to company employees boasting about the role his company played in expanding the intellectual property provisions in the TPP, saying Disney was able to “advocate successfully for a strong IP chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations.”
Disney played a major role in lobbying for a 1998 law that extended copyrights for media creations.
Congress’s 1998 rule change was a boon to Disney, which was due to lose its Mickey Mouse copyright in 2003. Thanks to this law change, which opponents derided as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” Mickey’s copyright was extended to 2023.
The TPP seeks to expand on that, establishing a global Mickey Mouse Protection regime. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman made a trip to Hollywood in May to remind a trade group that the TPP would require countries to lift their copyright terms to the 70-year standard in the United States. This would be an increase from 50 years, the current standard in many of the countries that are part of the negotiation.
Froman pointed to films such as Sound of Music and Dr. Zhivago, noting that these films are “1966 vintage, which without TPP will be off protection next year.”
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)When NAFTA was negotiated over 20 years ago, labor and environmental provisions weren’t included in NAFTA, but were part of side agreements without recourse to normal NAFTA trade sanctions.
TPP changes that.
Read the rest at: https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-eddc8d87ac73#.4y7ueyg4m
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-wysiwig/0999_Trade_Bilcon_Factsheet_04_low.pdf
https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-wysiwig/tpp-analysis-updated.pdf
this bit
https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-wysiwig/transcanada-trade-letter.pdf
coupled with this: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-transcanada-keystone-idUSKCN0ZB0R9
how's this good for us again?
"TransCanada said it then filed its formal arbitration request under North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provisions, seeking to recover what it says are costs and damages."
"NAFTA, whose arbitration provisions allow companies to challenge governments before international panels, has been a target of recent anti-free-trade sentiments in the United States."
randome
(34,845 posts)The only way a corporation can sue is if a country passes a law that favors its own companies over foreign ones. That's it.
And trade does benefit everyone to some extent. Maybe corporations make out better than the average citizen but that's something that needs to be addressed, not ignored, which it will be if you simply stop making trade agreements.
The single, most important thing we can do to support our economy is to vote the GOP skunks out of office.
The rest will follow.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)"The only way a corporation can sue is if a country passes a law that favors its own companies over foreign ones." So if a company from Vietnam bids lower than a US company on a government contracts, anything from the unemployment office to cyber security, they can sue if they don't get the job. It's like mandated outsourcing. It's not just me saying this. Here's a presentation from the Washington Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Trade Policy
http://leg.wa.gov/JointCommittees/LOCTP/Documents/2012Nov14/TPP%20Presentation.pdf
randome
(34,845 posts)There is nothing that says low bidder always wins. Nothing. That's just scare tactics from those who don't understand trade issues.
Notice the official sounding name of the organization, as if they have some special status in government affairs. They don't.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)I notice how you offered nothing to refute "their take"
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:10 AM - Edit history (1)
not by making a rational and logical argument that persuaded its opponents.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Response to portlander23 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed