jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (15 posts)

Obama and I have a falling out over Trans Pacific Trade Partnership

87
Credence2posted 2 years ago
I have been one of Barack Obama's staunchest supporters, until now.

When evaluating the scrap between Senator Warren of Mass. and the President, it looks like Senator Warren's admonitions should win out.

Congress divesting itself of its constitutional obligation the review and amend agreements when necessary as part of this trade partnership?

Suspicions: the GOP seems to be on board in a big way, that is a red flag right there.

Seems like Big Business would love the ability to have federal and state legislation laying out rules for financial interchange and those which protects the consumer nullified for their own selfish purposes.

What is with all the secrecy surrounding the formation of this novel legislation?

Republicans talk about states rights and local sovereignty and all this stuff, unless big business directs them to do otherwise.

I am disappointed that the President plays into the hands of plutocrats, with a legislative plan that will more likely strip and water down.commerce law to the bone over providing real economic growth.

I am just learning here, and not an expert, let's here more from some of you pro or con that may know more what is going on her.

After doing a bit of reading, something is just not sitting right.

I am coming at Obama from his left flank, and give browny points to Senator Warren's perspective.

I am waiting to hear how anything like this which is the honey of plutocrats. GOP, and big business tycoons is going to benefit me and the man in the street. I wait with baited breath, Mr, President.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I'm a little fuzzy about the furor of a treaty in the making. It is obviously necessary to keep details pretty quiet until it is a finished fact, whereupon it can be debated and discussed by our congress and that of the other (hopefully) signatory nations.
  
  Your very post indicates the reasons for this: because it is supported by one party, it is automatically bad. You will spin it as hard as possible ("honey of plutocrats. GOP, and big business tycoons,,,") to produce a negative reaction, without having the faintest idea of what is in it. You are not concerned with it being for the good of the nation, the economy or what long term results would be; you are ONLY concerned with it's impact on you.
  
  So far, I've seen very little of what's in that treaty, but what I HAVE seen (stripped of emotional spin) seems like a good thing for the country. You might do a little research on what both liberals and conservatives are saying and pick out what you can of truth before swinging the axe to behead it because a Republican somewhere will vote for it.
  reply report
  87
  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Good thing for the country, thats is not what I am hearing. I have done the research and the reviews are mixed. Why are you sure that it is such a good thing when so much is being hidden? You have not been hiding behind a rock, the GOP has stand firm against almost every Obama proposal, why is this one the exception? Since you don't have a lot of facts yourself, you can hardly speak of the difference between emotional and substantive. That is exactly what I am concerned about, is it for the good of the nation? What substantive information can you add outside of attacking me? Conservative types always think that they have the market cornered on virtue.
  
  It was interesting though that when Obama was working the agreement with Iraq, the other side did not want to wait to see the outcome of negotiations before passing judgment. I thought that you were not aligned with any political party.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  You're right - I have little information (I did say that). Apparently the same information you have, give or take, but I'm not making the error of deciding that because a political party (mostly) supports it that it must be a bad thing. But why would you ask why I think it is such a good thing? I made it very plain that I have insufficient information to make such a call!
  
  I just find it rather sad when a person decides that a political party (known to care more for themselves than the country or it's people) is either good or bad and makes decisions based on that.
  reply report
  87
  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Sorry, Wilderness, I have ideological problems with the GOP as presently constructed and probably always will. But being a conservative, you have your mind made up as to who gets to wear the white hat. I think that it is the GOP that is more 'self first', but that is my opinion, too.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I know you do. And I have problems with the ideology of BOTH parties, particularly as I don't believe either one of them has the best interests of the people OR the country in the forefront of their minds (or even on the back burner in most cases). And that's my opinion, that neither party cares one whit for the people - the biggest difference that I can see is that the GOP tries to force their religious views on everyone while the Dems are so shortsighted economically that they will destroy the country in even less time in their misbegotten efforts to spread governmental control over the population. The core beliefs and ideology of both parties is disgusting.
  
  But that's never a reason, IMO, to automatically declare a concept evil and wrong because of the party affiliation of the one proposing it.
  reply report
  87
  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Based on my distrust of the GOP, I am going to need to be concerned about anything they unanimously agree upon. Outside of the social issue thing, I see in your conversations with rhamsen and others that you tilt right more often than otherwise. There are plenty of us that lean left that will take issue with your view as to whose policies are most detrimental for the nation. The control from the GOP eminates from big business and financial industries, whose influence on government and the well being of the masses are far from democratic (with a small d) Your boogie man and my boogie man come from different sources, I therefore believe that the GOP economic ideal is just as destructive from a differing perspective.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  You see it that way because most of the discussions are economic in nature. Find ones about personal freedom, abortion, gay rights, etc. and you will always find me on the liberal side.
  
  Bottom line is that the liberals have it under control from a personal freedom standpoint - UNTIL it comes to the pocketbooks of those wanting freedom. At that time there is a 180 degree about-face and the liberal (DEM's) decide they have a right to all the earned money in the country to do with as they wish. And at that time the GOP is far superior as THEY become the ones promoting freedom while the liberal take is simply to play Robin Hood (legal theft) while enslaving the population to an ever greater degree.
  
  IMHO.
  reply report
  82
  gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Yes, Wilderness is very liberal on those issues. No one is a straight Conservative or Liberal. I classify myself as a Liberal however on certain socioeconomic issues, I am conservative such as welfare and social programs. Wilderness, you have made an excellent point yet again. Sorry I interjected and digressed a little, please continue the discussion as I exit!
  reply report
  87
  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I don't know it seems like the max tax rate has gone down considerably of the last 60 years. The GOP are more concerned about the upper crust of our society, Romney himself admitted it. Unfortunately, that is not where most of us live. The Private sector is the boogie man, cutting its costs at the expense of the public coffers. If the government is a problem, it is only because of the influence of these 'people'.
  reply report
  87
  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  Here are a few of the points that made me nervous about the agreement.
  
  It will severely limit the regulation of foreign corporations operating within U.S. boundaries, enough to give them greater rights than domestic firms.
  
  It will extend incentives for U.S. firms to move investments and jobs to lower-wage countries. (haven't we had enough of that?)
  
  It will establish an alternative legal system that gives foreign corporations and investors new rights that can circumvent U.S. courts and laws.
  
  And it will allow these foreign companies to sue U.S. taxpayers before foreign tribunals to demand compensation for lost revenue due to U.S. laws they claim undermine their TPP privileges or their investment “expectations.”
  
  Representative Ellison of Minn. brought some of these to light.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  "It will severely limit the regulation of foreign corporations operating within U.S. boundaries, enough to give them greater rights than domestic firms."
  
  I have a little problem believing that the treaty will allow anyone to violate US laws. Can you be more specific about what laws US firms must follow but foreign ones won't?
  
  "It will extend incentives for U.S. firms to move investments and jobs to lower-wage countries. (haven't we had enough of that?)" Specifics, please on what "incentives" will be provided to US firms to move overseas?
  
  "It will establish an alternative legal system that gives foreign corporations and investors new rights that can circumvent U.S. courts and laws."
  
  Sorry, I flatly do not believe this for a single moment. You will have to give specific examples of what laws can be ignored by foreign companies before I will swallow such a claim.
  
  "And it will allow these foreign companies to sue U.S. taxpayers before foreign tribunals to demand compensation for lost revenue due to U.S. laws they claim undermine their TPP privileges or their investment “expectations.”
  
  Given that the entire country is subject to the treaty, who else would you suggest be charged with enforcing it? The US Congress? I also question who these "taxpayers" are that will pay as well as the reasoning why such individual citizens have a responsibility to change US laws. Considerable clarification is needed.
  reply report
  87
  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this
  I will get back to you....Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S. , a good article from the New York Times
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  You make my point for me: the liberal isn't satisfied to take the same amount from everyone to run the country, nor even to take the same percentage of income from everyone. No, they declare that by some unknown reasoning they have an innate right to take more from one than another. We all agree it costs money to run the country, but somehow the liberal also "knows" that this person should pay more than that one. They have right to take whatever they want from whomever they want, and instead of cutting costs they merely demand ever more money for whatever purposes they wish.
  
  I disagree with the philosophy.
  reply report
2. 76
  rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this
  My problem besides what has been released is that Obama wants to "fast track" this whole thing. That means no debate on the floor. It will come right out of any committee that will oversee it. Obama himself has said his own party is sabotaging it. That should be enough for any one to take pause with this nail in the coffin for American jobs.
  reply report