Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:47 AM Apr 2016

The Panama Papers prove Mr. Sanders was wrong about a trade pact with Panama

UH oh....he'll have to take "that line" out of the stump speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-panama-papers-prove-mr-sanders-was-wrong-about-a-trade-pact-with-panama/2016/04/08/31f43106-fdae-11e5-80e4-c381214de1a3_story.html?postshare=9561460267182576&tid=ss_tw


SUDDENLY, AND quite improbably, free trade between the United States and tiny Panama is the hot issue on the Democratic side of the presidential campaign, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling an Obama administration-backed tariff-slashing pact that took effect four years ago “a disaster.” His complaint is not the usual one about job-killing trade deals; after all, the United States has a multibillion-dollar trade surplus with Panama, just as it did before the pact. This time, Mr. Sanders blames the trade deal for Panama’s allegedly booming offshore banking business for wealthy international tax-avoiders, which has just been exposed in leaked records known as the Panama Papers.

“I predicted that the passage of this disastrous trade deal would make it easier, not harder, for the wealthy and large corporations to evade taxes by sheltering billions of dollars offshore,” Mr. Sanders said in a news release. “I wish I had been proven wrong about this, but it has now come to light that the extent of Panama’s tax avoidance scams is even worse than I had feared.” Quite a contrast, he says, with Hillary Clinton, who helped push the deal through Congress as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state.

The evidence, however, suggests that the truth is pretty nearly the opposite of what Mr. Sanders claims — and our source for that is the Panama Papers themselves.

Data culled from the documents by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and presented in several charts on the group’s website, show that the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, which specialized in setting up offshore accounts and shell companies for wealthy people, has been steadily reducing its activity in Panama for about a decade. As it happens, the decline began about the time the Bush administration and Panama began discussing a free-trade pact — and accelerated after the deal took effect during Mr. Obama’s first term.

Specifically, the number of offshore incorporations fell from 4,741 in 2005 to 835 in 2015.
Most important, as of last year Mossack Fonseca appeared to have nearly completely ceased incorporating the least transparent form of company — known as “bearer shares” — which often don’t need to register an owner’s name....In response to our questions, the Sanders campaign didn’t address the data, but said the administration had missed an opportunity to completely “eradicate” the Panama tax haven. To us, it looks like the Obama administration’s diplomacy resulted in real progress, and that if anyone’s entitled to say “I told you so” about that, it would be Ms. Clinton.

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Panama Papers prove Mr. Sanders was wrong about a trade pact with Panama (Original Post) MADem Apr 2016 OP
Post removed Post removed Apr 2016 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author passiveporcupine Apr 2016 #2
Why can I hear Clinton saying "I told you so" passiveporcupine Apr 2016 #3
St. Bernard gets something wrong or purposely distorts? Damn, he's beginning Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #6
Despite voting with them about 99% of the time.. Kentonio Apr 2016 #7
What was he going to do? Vote with the Teabaggers? Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #8
You're funny. He was an independent, he could vote however he pleased. Kentonio Apr 2016 #11
He's obviously NOT a Democrat--qualifying his opponent as "unqualified", Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #12
Sorry but in the real world not everything is a choice between Dem and Tea Party Kentonio Apr 2016 #13
Well, he could've abstained, of course. But, his Vermont Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #14
No it is not just aye or nay. Kentonio Apr 2016 #15
But then, supposedly debated with himself, by your implication, whether to say "Aye" or "Nay". LOL! Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #16
He's achieved considerably more than most senators ever will. Kentonio Apr 2016 #17
Oh, not everything about every trade agreement is evil and bad? betsuni Apr 2016 #4
WaPo hate barrage incoming...duck and cover. They are so laughably predictable. Surya Gayatri Apr 2016 #5
KNR Lucinda Apr 2016 #9
This will get a lot of mileage. haha, not. n/t Aerows Apr 2016 #10
Not good TMontoya Apr 2016 #18
WP gets twelve Pinocchios. PowerToThePeople Apr 2016 #19
Ha.. the truth finally comes out.. thank you MADem.. Cha Apr 2016 #20

Response to MADem (Original post)

Response to MADem (Original post)

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
3. Why can I hear Clinton saying "I told you so"
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:20 AM
Apr 2016

I can hear her exact tone.

It does sound like Obama's move on transparency might have been a good move. And this may actually be the truth (not misrepresented by the WaPo, and Sanders might have just been wrong because he didn't know the actual numbers were already in decline.

He does still have a point that it didn't end the tax evasion...just minimized the numbers.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
6. St. Bernard gets something wrong or purposely distorts? Damn, he's beginning
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:41 AM
Apr 2016

to sound like just any other calculating, ambitious pol.

Similar to his recently adopted Democratic brethren--those whom he soundly bashed for years, until he opportunistically joined them.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
7. Despite voting with them about 99% of the time..
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:45 AM
Apr 2016

Sorry, your attack line doesn't really stand up to examination.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
8. What was he going to do? Vote with the Teabaggers?
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:53 AM
Apr 2016

Voting to burnish his own political record and then bashing his Dem. colleagues at every possible juncture--to the point of advocating for a primary challenge to a sitting Democratic president in 2012.

Spare us the Sanders apologist line.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
11. You're funny. He was an independent, he could vote however he pleased.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:09 AM
Apr 2016

But in the real world (you know the one that isn't a bizarrely partisan fantasy were we completely distort the historical record) Bernie Sanders was accepted by EVERYONE as being the most progressive member of the senate who caucused with the Dems and only voted against the party line when he felt they had gone astray.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
12. He's obviously NOT a Democrat--qualifying his opponent as "unqualified",
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:26 AM
Apr 2016

and calling for a primary challenge for a Dem. president.

His calculated hypocrisy is constantly on public display.

You ARE being facetious when you suggest that he "could've voted" with the Teabaggers...right?

Like he would have jeopardized a whole carefully-crafted career image as the "PEOPLE'S CHAMPION"...Bwaahaaaa!

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
13. Sorry but in the real world not everything is a choice between Dem and Tea Party
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:30 AM
Apr 2016

That's never been how politics works, it's just a lazy attempt to paint everything as some simplistic team game where you're either 'with us or against us'.

Bonus points for the attempt to claim his ethics are just some big act by the way. He must be a great actor then, as he's held the same moral positions for at least 50 years.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
14. Well, he could've abstained, of course. But, his Vermont
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:39 AM
Apr 2016

constituents might not have been best pleased.

In a two-party system, there are two choices: Yes or No, Aye or Nay, Dem. or Rep., up or down.

If you're a self-proclaimed "neither of the above", but you still wish to play, you are logistically obliged to come down on one side or the other.

And, many clever actors, who carry on double lives, have only been unmasked after their demise. Not that Sanders is one, but he surely can play an audience.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
15. No it is not just aye or nay.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:49 AM
Apr 2016

The reason he earned the fond title Amendment King is because of his untiring work trying to actually further the progressive cause by making bills more progressive BEFORE they ended up in a straight up aye/nay vote. He didn't just sit on his ass and vote the party line on flawed legislation.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
16. But then, supposedly debated with himself, by your implication, whether to say "Aye" or "Nay". LOL!
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:03 AM
Apr 2016

His laudatory amendment work notwithstanding, he has never authored a major piece of legislation in his long career, aside from naming a post office or two.

Jump on a moving train and you're sure to go somewhere.

betsuni

(25,531 posts)
4. Oh, not everything about every trade agreement is evil and bad?
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:23 AM
Apr 2016

Trade agreements under Democratic administrations aren't diabolical plots to destroy America? This is why I refuse to mindlessly believe the TPP is evil and bad. (Get ready for dozens of comments about how yucky the Washington Post is, as if that changes facts.)

 

TMontoya

(369 posts)
18. Not good
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:15 AM
Apr 2016

Looks like he once again reacted before having the facts. Seems to be a theme with his campaign.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Panama Papers prove M...