Discussion for article #246977
So AP is dinging Sec. Clinton for supporting the administrations position on the TPP before the final agreement was finalized, and after leaving the administration and could take her own position on the final deal, opposed it is a “fact check”…?
Get real.
And for the record I support the TPP along with President Obama while Clinton and Sanders both oppose it. Reasonable people and progressives can actually have different positions on very complex global macro and microeconomic issues and they all intersect.
12 Likes
She said she waited till she knew what was in it to decide whether she was for or against.
As Secretary of State she didn’t know what would be in the final agreement but she knew what the US position was, she was in charge of it. Being in favor of negotiating an agreement at that point is not at all incompatible with what she said about taking a position later.
Of course Bernie is always against trade deals regardless so like a stopped clock he is always going to be on the right side if unemployment is high when an election comes round.
I’m not impressed by the other AP claims. No, the state has NOT put nearly enough money in. It was the Governor who took control of the city, it was the state legislature that gave him the power. The state wrecked Flint’s water supply and the state should bear the full cost of fixing it.
9 Likes
It was not final and she could not read it until it was released. As Sec of State, she was advocating for her boss.
2 Likes
Where is the fact check on Sanders statement that banning assault weapons would shut down gun manufacturing in America? And he did it while voting against the auto industry bail out.
2 Likes
I am all for shutting down the death industry in the US. If banning assault weapons would do that, count me in.
3 Likes
What does banning assault weapons have to do with the death penalty!
In December 2014 Senator (I-VT) Bernie Sanders denounced the TPP:
Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a "free trade" agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.
It is pretty hard to find any Progressives that would support the TPP.
1 Like
Only thing I can think of is fewer assault weapons, less need for death penalty?
And of course, like clockwork, a purity troll has already bashed you on that.
I am myself (respectfully) curious to hear more on your thoughts regarding its benefits. I’ve only heard the negative (and was undecided for awhile, because I felt that what I was hearing about it was completely one-sided; what tipped me to the “against” side was when I learned about the “corporations could sue to undermine a country’s labor and environmental protections” aspect), but the AP article implies that a lot of that may have been cut out of there (it would be very nice if the article had pointed out the exact provisions that have been dropped, and not just leave it at saying that “certain” ones were). If the pros do outweigh the cons now, that’d be great news to hear.
This! The AP “fact checkers” had a lot of trouble distinguishing between “contributing some money” and “contributing the full funds that are necessary”. And also gave Snyder a pass for how long it took him until he actually started bothering to do anything about the crisis (that was caused by his anti-democratic “emergency manager”).
Yeah, that was bizarre. He seems to think that “assault weapons” is all that “gun manufacturing” consists of.
1 Like
Well aware Sanders opposed the TPP, as does Clinton. I and Obama support it.
Opposing or supporting the TPP is not a litmus test for progressivism.
4 Likes
I am against TPP based simply on the track record that we’ve had with earlier trade deals.
However, to be fair, in the circles I hang out (both online and offline) I only hear the negative aspects, so would definitely be interested in hearing the positive aspects.
One positive aspect that I do think exists does not support TPP itself, but rather, the need for a trade agreement with the pacific zone, and that is the existence of China. This is China’s backyard, and while these countries would probably prefer doing business with the US, if the US did not come up with some sort of agreement, the US would almost entirely be cut off from this part of the world economically by China.
Well for starters, the companies that can and would offshore jobs already have done so without TPP. In short, the status quo has already done the damage because of lazzefare trade policy. The biggest culprit is of course China, but the TPP is acutely a bulwark against China since they are not part of the TPP and heads off their attempts to form their Pacific trade deal bloc.
U.S. exports would are expected to increase by $123.5 billion, focusing on machinery, especially electrical, autos, plastics and agriculture industries. It does this by removing 18,000 tariffs placed on U.S. exports to the other countries whereas 80% of these types of tariffs on foreign imports coming into the United States do not exist. So the TPP evens the playing field.
All countries agreed to cut down on wildlife trafficking, especially elephants, rhinoceroses, and marine species. It prevents environmental abuses, such as unsustainable logging and fishing. Those that don’t will face trade penalties.
Here in Oregon alone $9.2 Billion in goods exports came from our state to TPP countries in 2014, including $2.6 Billion in goods exports to Malaysia, $1.6 Billion to Japan, and $538 Million to Vietnam. This deal would help increase those rates since the TPP would cut import tariffs in those countries for our goods and services.
Over 3,600 companies from Oregon exported goods to TPP countries in 2013 and over 88% were small and medium sized companies where most jobs are created.
3 Likes
Thanks! That’s a lot more info about the positive side of it than I learned from the research I did on my own (finding a truly unbiased source on this is… difficult). I still wish I knew what provisions have been dropped (a hearty “thanks for nothing” to the AP for being so light on context).
1 Like
TPP is - most definitely - a litmus test for Progressives.
it shouldn’t be…
6 Likes
There has been very little coverage of TPP since the final text was released in late 2015.
One item that was added to the final text that addressed the concerns of liberals was a measure that prevents tobacco companies from pursuing restraint-of-trade lawsuits against nations that enact no-smoking laws. Also, the time period for exclusive rights for pharmaceutical firms that create and market biologicals was reduced from earlier drafts in response to feedback from public health professionals who adovcate for the speedy delivery of life-saving drugs.
An interesting argument for the TPP, and in response to Bernie Sanders’ criticisms, was published in DKos last summer.
I also support the TPP and see it as an opportunity to expand trade to overseas markets. And since it includes enforceable environmental protections and standards from the International Labor Organization on worker rights and worker safety, the TPP would reduce the economic incentives to offshore to low-wage corporate havens in developing nations.
Also, the TPP has a strategic aspect in challenging China’s moves to be the hegemon in Asia and the Pacific Rim.
Interestingly, Senator Elizabeth Warren also spoke out against the TPP while it was still being negotiated, but as far as I know has been silent on the issue since the finalized text was released.
3 Likes
Last year the TPP was a topic of heated debate on these comment pages. Several regular commenters here defended it, but most criticized it, calling it a sellout to corporate interests and criticizing what they felt was undue secrecy regarding the ongoing negotiations among representatives of the 11 participating nations.
Last year, before the negotiations were complete, I wrote a few lengthy commentaries on TPP and one in general about our nation’s history of working to expand trade opportunities. I got some positive feedback for those remarks, so I recently posted them on medium.com.
The first column laid out my views on the scenario the US found itself in with regard to the TPP. This column, which I submitted as a guest blog on another liberal site, also got linked to a website run by a group of pro-trade Democrats.
I followed that up with a piece on our nation’s history of supporting and expanding trade opportunities.
I also wrote another long piece about the Trans-Pacific Partnership that was also published as a guest blog and was linked to a website run by the Atlantic Council, an established organization currently chaired by Jon Huntsman, former Republican Utah Governor and President Obama’s former Ambassador to China.
I present this to you not to toot my horn but out of a belief that there might be an opportunity for a bipartisan opening for policies that could stimulate trade, create jobs, boost the economy, and enhance relations with our trading partners.
-
The TPP repeats many of NAFTA’s mistakes, as well as those of other bilateral trade treaties, like the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, which cost some 2.7 million U.S. jobs, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, which failed to deliver the 70,000 jobs its brokers promised.
-
The Economic Policy Institute estimates that under the TPP we stand to lose more than 130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone, with American workers having to compete with their counterparts in Vietnam, where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour.
-
The TPP also threatens Internet freedoms and civil liberties, collective bargaining rights, public and environmental health, food safety, financial stability–and American democracy.
-
The closed-door nature of the negotiation process has positioned Congress and the American people as passive recipients of public policy, rather than agents of it - and left us out of decision-making processes that will have broad and deep implications in our everyday lives. Meanwhile, 500-plus corporations have been seated at the TPP negotiation table from the start.
-
Progressive Senators like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have written letters to the U.S. Trade Representative in protest against the secret negotiation process, and the TPP’s adverse effects on financial regulation.
-
Sanders has also said that he would introduce legislation to require disclosure of all future trade agreement negotiations.
-
MSNBC owner Comcast has lobbied for the TPP. Last year, it fired host Ed Schultz, an outspoken opponent of the agreement.
-
MSNBC was in the midst of broadcasting a speech from Senator Bernie Sanders. Things were going well as he railed against the low minimum wage and state of labor in the United States, but when he turned his attention to criticizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the network suddenly cut the feed.
The more you know about the odious TPP, the less you’ll like it – and that’s why the administration and its corporate allies don’t want you to know.
20 Likes
When I was a kid, my home town of Ambridge PA was a thriving community right in the center of the steel industry. Then Reagan came to power and broke PATCO. Milliken started floating junk bonds to finance hostile takeovers. In 1984, the steel industry collapsed in Western PA. Thousands of steelworkers laid off from their union jobs could not find work that paid anywhere near as much as they made. Retirees found themselves stripped of their pensions and health care thanks to Milliken and his fellow Wall Street parasites.
Then Clinton pushed NAFTA. Mexico gets flooded with American taxpayer subsidized corn which destroys their farming industry. Those farmers are displaced. They can’t find work, they come to the US as undocumented workers further depressing wages which is what Wall Street wants. Meanwhile with each succeeding “free trade agreement”, Wall Street sends more and more manufacturing jobs overseas.
This has to stop. Since 1981, Wall Street has been having a party and forcing the 99% to pay for it. It’s time to make those parasites pay their fair share of the bill. It’s time to repeal Right To Work laws and rebuild labor unions in this country. It’s time to consider a maximum wage that a person can make.
That’s why I support Bernie. Unlike Hillary, Bernie knows what the difference is between kneeling down and bending over.
1 Like