TPP so bad even the US congress is shocked

[marmar]

TPP so bad even the US congress is shocked
By Unconventional Economist in Global Macroat 11:52 am on March 27, 2015

By Leith van Onselen


More worrying details have emerged about the the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – the US-led regional trade pact between 12 nations (including Australia) – with the New York Times revealing that members of the US Congress have been viewing the secretive document and are disgusted by its contents:

Members of Congress have been reviewing the secret document in secure reading rooms, but this is the first disclosure to the public since an early version leaked in 2012.

“This is really troubling,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat. “It seems to indicate that savvy, deep-pocketed foreign conglomerates could challenge a broad range of laws we pass at every level of government, such as made-in-America laws or anti-tobacco laws. I think people on both sides of the aisle will have trouble with this”…

“U.S.T.R. will say the U.S. has never lost a case, but you’re going to see a lot more challenges in the future,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. “There’s a huge pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for these companies”…

Senator Brown contended that the overall accord, not just the investment provisions, was troubling. “This continues the great American tradition of corporations writing trade agreements, sharing them with almost nobody, so often at the expense of consumers, public health and workers,” he said…

Critics say the text’s definition of an investment is so broad that it could open enormous avenues of legal challenge.

The article is, of course, referring to the TPP’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause, which according to an earlier leaked draft from Wikileaks, would give authority to major corporations to challenge laws made by governments in the national interest in international courts of arbitration, effectively limiting Governments’ ability to form public policy. ............(more)

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/03/tpp-bad-even-us-congress-shocked/

[djean111]

1. Aaaaand - this is just one of twenty-eight corporate-written chapters.

Don't lose sight of that, when someone is telling you that you are too stupid to understand the goodness of this thing.
Only five or six chapters about trade; the rest are all corporate goodies, as far as I can tell. Because it is super sekrit, and even those who can read it are not allowed to talk about it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

2. I wish Obama would come out against this, he would have to betray long time supporters

of his that surely have this as their payback, which ALL politicians have to deal with.

But if he would denounce this and walk away from it, it would make him near perfect as a president.

[magical thyme]

5. um, you do realize he is strongly in favor of it, and wants to fasttrack it to prevent discussion,

debate, or anything other than just voting for it.

[RiverLover]

6. He's been for this since day 1, working on it (with Hillary) & only didn't try fast track sooner

because Democrats had a majority in the Senate & they'd let him know they'd never pass TPA fast track for the TPP. But now Rethugs got the majority & he's going for it. He has a chance now, because its a RW corporate policy for the US.

[KoKo]

7. Don't forget that his Key Benefactor in running for Senate/Pres. was Penny Pritzger...

and she couldn't get confirmed in his first term but she's now installed as Sec. of Commerce. ACA & Wall St. meltdown put TPP on hold until second term. But, Pritzger wanted it.

Greg Palast did many articles about it on in including one titled "Pennies from Heaven" and others also pointed outt how much he owes Pritzger in reporting. I don't know whether he favors it himself as strongly but he talks it up as if he does. And, Wall Street/Corporations definitely want it...and in this Administration they get what they want.

[appalachiablue]

56. Secy. of Commerce Penny Pritzker of Chicago, Hyatt Hotel heir & associated with Superior Bank

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

subprime lending problems. Main donor to the Pres. Campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Pritzker

[sabrina 1]

11. There has been no indication that Obama has any problem with this. So now it's up to Congress

and the people to make sure it never passes, slow or fast track.

[lark]

24. This is his bill, why would he disown it?

He hand picked every one of the delegates, this is his product. Yes, it's shamefull and totally a give away to the 1%, but it is what he personally wanted or he would have chosen different delegates. Like instead of corporate lobbyist, he could have gotten environmentalists, populists, etc.

Our trojan horse president is showing his alter ego with this treaty.

[Enthusiast]

47. It is necessary to hold the President's feet to the fire. He said it.

He must be criticized when he is on the wrong track.

[raindaddy]

93. On the wrong track?

This isn't simply a President heading down a country road, veering off in the wrong direction and needing a little nudge to get back on track. This is purposely building a super highway in the opposite direction of "for the people and by the people".

[Enthusiast]

94. I was trying to measure my words as to be considerate of the person I was responding to.

Some find it difficult to entertain the idea that the President would do anything that might be harmful to the people.

[raindaddy]

95. I understand E

I also think it's way past to be honest with ourselves as well. "Obviously" you know what I'm talking about... This third way BS

[Jack Rabbit]

3. K/R

!!

[Omaha Steve]

4. There are several DUers still defending TPP because POTUS won't screw us!

Ya right.

I got Sen. Warren's editorial from a solid R in e-mail last week. There is hope we citizens will wake up.

OS

[Maedhros]

12. Those people are willfully ignorant. [n/t]

[ND-Dem]

85. Not ignorant. Operatives and fanboys.

[christx30]

14. Faith can be a dangerous thing. n/t

[Enthusiast]

49. Faith, historically speaking, is one of the most dangerous of all human qualities.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[arcane1]

32. Yep, and calling us every name in the book for being skeptical of the damn thing.

[ybbor]

44. "How do you even know what's in it?"

Well now we are starting to see, and who was closer to being correct? Looks like the skeptical ones.

They seem to be conveniently absent on these threads.

[Enthusiast]

48. PLUS ONE, a whole bunch!

[marym625]

59. from your lips. ...

Though I don't believe in God.

I was speaking to someone the other day, a Republican who is liberal on social values. (I know, a strange beast) and she said that she now believes that the Republicans care about nothing but money. Took years but I think their shady dealings are starting to be known.

As far as the TPP, these people that tell us not to jump to conclusions are doing exactly that. And considering what happened with the budget in December, it's not a jump to think President Obama doesn't have our back when it comes to money and corporations

[FiveGoodMen]

8. Okay. NOW how about the fact that Obama's pushing for it?

It so bad is shocks congress, but our exalted leader is for it.

[jwirr]

9. I am assuming that they could even sue to override our environmental and labor laws.

[gregcrawford]

25. You are absolutely right...

... and it will be one of the first things on their agenda if this malignant abortion ever passes. Sharpen your pitchforks, ladies and gentlemen...

[lark]

29. That's exactly what it's saying.

Corporations and their expected profits would take precedence over our national or state laws.

[appalachiablue]

60. Profit over people? The M$M's media blackout of this Wikileaks story prevents the Pres. from

commenting on it according to one poster. Because then it would be public. It's always something and this has been so secretive. OTOH if it walks like a duck,

[lark]

98. Loud quacking is being heard

but ignored by the "true believers".

[arcane1]

31. And force taxpayers to pay out lost profits that result from those laws.

It's a betrayal of the American people, plain and simple.

[jwirr]

35. Last night I went to the WH contact site and point blank asked him why he would support this kind of

agreement. So far no answer. IF I even get one I expect it to be one of those generic answers.

[Doctor_J]

89. yes any local or state drilling prohibitions will be gone

The environmental protections will be the first to go

[woo me with science]

10. K&R

[colsohlibgal]

13. I Wish I Was Shocked That Obama Is Pushing This

But I'm not. Also - this isn't a shock for anyone that pays attention and is not in the tank for Obama. He tipped his hand right off the bat with Emmanuel and the financial team he brought in. It was also apparent to all but the Bots that his stump speeches in 2007/8 were mainly to get elected. Once in he headed straight Third Way. Just like Bubba in 1992.

[LiberalElite]

43. Yep. Sometimes I want to change my username to

"Bamboozled By Bubba" I voted for HIM twice too.

[appalachiablue]

69. Ditto. 1992-2016, 24 years of Wall St. Banksters & Goldman in charge of Treasury, then

Defense & Justice, the EU, instead of leading economists like Stiglitz & Krugman. The disillusionment of these two Dem. administrations is a gnat compared to the ugly reality. Our 2-Party, buy-partisan political system is totally run by and for banks and corporate donors, 'they own the place', 'the system is rigged'. The wealthy investor class of both parties is very well off; this is global neoliberal economics.

[LiberalArkie]

51. He is a lawyer - you can pay a lawyer 1 week to say smoking is the best thing for you and

next week pay him to say it is the worst thing for you.

[appalachiablue]

71. +10

[WillyT]

15. K & R !!!

[rusty fender]

16. But it's just a draft!

[BeanMusical]

83. Lol! +1

First thing that came to mind.

[bbgrunt]

17. k and r!

[riqster]

18. Cockroaches hate having the light shine on them.

We need more transparency.

[appalachiablue]

74. More people need to know about Independent Media to help end Corporate Cockroach rule now!

Power to the People, not Roaches-

[riqster]

78. shhh.

[Dont call me Shirley]

19. Call your Senators, Representatives and Whitehouse to express your opposition to this global

corporate coup' d'états.

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

[ND-Dem]

20. kr

[Enrique]

21. that's why they want Fast Track

so Congress won't have any say in it.

[PADemD]

22. If the TPP passes, there would be no need for a Congress

or any other legislative body. The corporations would make the rules.

[Enthusiast]

50. The corporations nearly have sole legislative authority as it is.

Horrible......

[appalachiablue]

75. True. Their reps., lobbyists are already set up in DC which is convenient. We will have been

replaced by corps, next automation. Hm.

[Overseas]

97. So true. Provisions like NAFTA Chapter 11 are included in TPP. Protecting investors over citizens.

Here's an excellent documentary w Bill Moyers and William Greider about that. Under the guise of protecting investors, companies have been able to sue governments over environmental regulations and other laws to protect their citizens, and it is still going on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017255136#post2 Thanks to BainsBane for posting this.

http://www.novanewsnow.com/News/Regional/2015-03-21/article-4085504/Bilcon-wins-NAFTA-dispute-over-Digby-Neck-quarry/1

[Blue_In_AK]

23. This is encouraging.

Why is President Obama in favor?

[Vincardog]

36. Why is President Obama in favor? Why didn't he prosecute the Banksters and war Criminals?

Why didn't he push for Single Payer?
Why did he appoint Wall Street lobbyists and insiders to his administration?

FOLLOW THE MONEY

[Enthusiast]

52. Why did he create the Catfood Commission and appoint two anti New Deal Zealots to head it?

[appalachiablue]

57. That did so much damage, many regular Dems. who heard the Simpson-Bowels spin on

the need to cut Social Security drank the koolaide. Those 2 were everywhere in the M$M media for a couple years, receiving speaker money to fund Their retirements, golden years-

[Enthusiast]

58. Many of us will never know "golden years".

[appalachiablue]

63. Yes. Many in the wealthy US investor class, including those from our buy-partisan, bought 2-Party

political system will enjoy fine, comfortable retirement years-

[99th_Monkey]

38. Obama either cut some kind of back-room horse-trading deal

or he's a sell-out, or some kind of combination of the two.

I don't know how else to explain his actions re: TPP

[AzDar]

26. What the fuck is wrong with our President?!? Utterly disgusted and baffled... he KNOWS better.

[Cryptoad]

27. Oh Ye of little Fatih! ,,,,,,,,

[cali]

34. O Ye of too much faith and too little reason.

[bvar22]

66. Thats funny!

Thanks!

[99th_Monkey]

28. Shocked at the contents or shocked that their shenanigans have been exposed?

It's not like our Congress Critters didn't know what was in the TPP, it's
that the public and the press could only guess or go from here-say,
prior to it being fully exposed by WikiLeaks.

[arcane1]

30. Clearly they just hate Obama and want to bash him with anti-Obama attacks.

[Enthusiast]

53. They're racists. That's the only explanation.

[bvar22]

68. They won't be happy until they get their Unicorn.

*

[QC]

33. They're only pretending to be shocked by it to hurt the president's feelings.

They never really loved him!!!

[LongTomH]

37. The hopeful thing is, that there is organized opposition, even in Australia, which will also be.....

......heavily impacted by the TPP.

[TheKentuckian]

39. If the Senator from Wall Street can't spin it as glorious why are Democrats that value our votes and

work for a living trying to polish this turd?

Damn straight, I question motives as party member, citizen, and fellow human being in a lot of ways and the dishonesty is the reason why.
Just say you are a corporate Republican disgusted by the Tea nuts or an unwelcome to the party except as a mockable token minority instead of pretending to be "on the same side", to "share common goals", to be "as left as it gets", or for crying out loud a "Marxist" while fucking Chuck Schumer has easily out flanked you on the left.

If you support this in light of the fruit of 40 plus years of this trade tact then you are a corporate hack, a Kool Aid guzzling cultist, or a moron regardless of party identification.

[Enthusiast]

46. They'll make a few insignificant changes and declare it wonderful.

I do not trust these sunzabitches!

[TheKentuckian]

67. No, in no way am I investing or implying any level of trust for the Senator from Wall Street

I'm saying we got no shortage of folks staking out territory on his (no matter how disingenuous or heart felt) right and on the attack on any and all opposition.

If you are in a swarm on a economic position to Schumer's right on a policy track that is WELL WORN and consistently terrible outcomes for workers then you're a fucking saboteur not a friend.

The arguments are the same tired ass lies as have been pitched for 40 years or more, it is offensive. How stupid do they think we are? Maybe we are but not me and I'm not cool with any motherfuckers with that level of disrespect.

At least get some new lies! If they are going to serve this warmed over pig vomit they better expect it to be spit back in their face and for to never be forgotten like the wagon circling on chained CPI that they now attempt to play off and pretend it was never proposed in the most dishonest fashion.

[Enthusiast]

70. I didn't think you were making such a suggestion. I was just saying something out of frustration.

Great post.

[stillwaiting]

77. I think Schumer is objecting vocally and publicly because he doesn't want pushback against his

desire to be Senate Majority Leader.

That's it. Nothing else.

Schumer sucks.

[Doctor_J]

90. pssh. Schumer is just responding to the backlash

Pretending this is too corporate friendly for him. He'll be on board soon

[L0oniX]

40. It's so bad that only the oligarchy loves it.

[awoke_in_2003]

41. most transparent administration ever. nt

[bigwillq]

61. Said no one ever.

[awoke_in_2003]

62. Yep. nt

[Enthusiast]

45. They should not even consider voting in favor of the TTP or TTIP.

And they should absolutely reject fast track.

Either way, we do not need another fucking American job killing trade deal.

No trade deal of any kind! Period!

[Enthusiast]

54. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[mother earth]

55. K & R, TPP is an abomination to every nation, it grants power beyond nations. nt

[Octafish]

64. 'the great American tradition of corporations writing trade agreements' is GOP policy.

Why it's now bread-and-butter for the DEMs is a subject worthy of discussion.

[99Forever]

65. Someone PLEASE, explain to me why Obama is pushing this fucking monstrosity?

The more I see of it, the more it reeks of corporate corruption and blatant sovereignty sapping power grab. Yet POTUS is trying to ram this piece of shit thru. Are you kidding us Barack?

He needs to explain himself.

[BeanMusical]

86. He never was who he pretended to be back in 2008

and even less the person his worshipers still believe him to be. His legacy won't be a positive thing, to say the least.

[bvar22]

72. Obama must not be too worried.

He hasn't unleashed the Old NAFTA Dog to sell it for him yet.

[pa28]

73. If they public knew what was in it they'd reject it. Simple as that.

At least that's what the guy who wrote it said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/opinion/obamas-covert-trade-deal.html?_r=1

[pa28]

82. I'm as stunned as you are and maybe a little impressed at the subtlety.

Nobody yelling into a microphone and no gangs breaking windows.

BTW welcome to DU. I'm guessing they'll ban you now.

[Wella]

76. Schumer is absolutely right; and this is why Congress should know about treaties

while they are in progress.

[ND-Dem]

88. schumer is feeding the public the bullshit he thinks they'll buy.

[cheapdate]

79. The question seems to be why is Obama "pushing this fucking monstrosity?"

I think the answer is easy. Because he believes in it. He believes, as has every president, Democrat or Republican, in memory, that expanding trade is in the country's interest, and that one job of the government is to facilitate that process.

It's a conventional outlook and Obama is a conventional politician with a very conventional perspective on economics and the relationship between government and business. He's never espoused anything but a conventional view in these matters.

[Doctor_J]

92. HIs entire presidency has been a corporate wet dream

This should be no surprise to anyone

[cheapdate]

96. I might not go that far...corporations could dream bigger than Barack Obama.

His presidency has been good for Wall Street and corporate America, but there have been plenty of developments that have not pleased corporations; the reorganization of the Mineral Management Service as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, the EPA's classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, CAFE standards, the final release of mercury emission standards for coal-fired power plants, FCC net neutrality, etc., etc.

It's an open question what he might could have accomplished with a Democratic congress, but I think it could have been truly amazing. Elizabeth Warren would be in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Van Jones would be in charge of the EPA, etc., etc.

Obama's ethics and mine are considerably different in many ways -- I tend to have "radical" notions of environmental stewardship and social justice. But he's been an incredible president in the face of fierce and unreasonable resistance.

[ND-Dem]

84. I seriously doubt schumer is shocked. Lip service.

[nikto]

87. You mean a corporate and banking dictatorship running the world isn't GOOD?

Who knew?

[raindaddy]

91. The question every Democrat needs to ask themselves...

Why is this happening under a Democratic president? This trade agreement undermines every principle the Democratic party stands for. It's obvious the party has been leaning further to the right over the years but this marks a major ideological shift.