posted 03-26-2015 03:38 PM                  

Obama wants this so can we get you republicans to help defeat this?

WASHINGTON — An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business, according to a classified document.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.

Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacif ic-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?_r=0

------------------
Why doesn't a jock point to the sky and say "thank you lord" when the play DOESN'T work?

posted 03-27-2015 02:11 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by mslc10:
Looks lika another post to lure us in.......especially the way it is introduced and who it's posted by...... Just sayin.....don't want another Dayton issue.....lol

---

No, I am not trolling you.This a serious issue. The US will give up a lot of its sovereignty under this treaty. You may not agree with me most of the time but if you read my posts, you know I am not a bombthrower.

------------------
Why doesn't a jock point to the sky and say "thank you lord" when the play DOESN'T work?

posted 03-27-2015 04:40 AM                  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhzUGiYeZA4

posted 03-27-2015 06:45 AM                  

Maybe not a bombthrower,,,,but its those backpacks you carry with the pressure-cooker topics that concern some

Regardless,,,,we need differing viewpoints in this forum to keep it active and fresh.

posted 03-27-2015 09:45 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by padroo:
Why is no one talking about this? This is all being done behind closed doors. It looks like part of the New World Order to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws87OnUASWg

---

I am not surprised. Nearly everything the Obama and/or the Democrats have done has been behind closed doors or without representation all of the people elected to represent us.

Here is the crux of the matter whether you want to believe it or not. Obama thinks the USA should not be a world leader. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great nation that has at times made errors. He is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies! He wants us just to be a nation among others.

This goes a long way to explaining why he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership among other issues.

Can anyone name one of Obamas foreign policies that has been successful? Please show me proof I am wrong.

Hopefully Congress will stop him somehow. But it will require cooperation of the Democrats to have a veto proof majority.

posted 03-27-2015 09:46 AM                  

But it is cloaked in some mystery as many of the details are purposely not being released....that is troubling..

as for the rest of it....Uniions hate it...

the nonsense about allowing foreign corporations to sue in the U.S....any corporation registered here in the U.S. already has that right....

all in all this agreement is good for multilateral trade....and probably bad for some of the Unions here in the U.S. that has made some of our industries non competitive.....Case in point is Oil.....we were in the middle of an oil boom here in the U.S. due to fracking.......But that has hit the skids due to Saudia Arabia flooding the market with oil that has a per barrel costs of production that we simply cannot compete with....

posted 03-27-2015 09:57 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by BeWare:

Can anyone name one of Obamas foreign policies that has been successful? Please show me proof I am wrong.

---

well, at the risk of some spirited disagreement.....we are not fighting in the middle of the sunni/Shiite civil war that has been brewing/ongoing in the middle east....and that is a good thing..

for decades, whenever the conflict there would get stirred....the mantra was always...let the U.S. send in some troops....

for the first time, we are staying out of it, for the most part....Iraq and Iran fought an 8 year war to a stalemate....the extreme sunni hate the extreme Shiite..and always have....but its their fight

the fallout may be oil prices...as once Saudia Arabia gets involved, oil prices may spike.....But that may well be a good thing for us...because for the first time in history, we are actually capable of producing more oil that we actually need...the same is already true for natural gas...

so despite Obama being arguably the worst president in the past 100 years.... he may have stumbled into a strategy by default that may actually help us...

we should sell as many arms as we can to the Saudi's and other Sunni nations....Eqypt, Yemen, Oman, etc...

but we should stay out of their fight.....

posted 03-27-2015 09:59 AM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by attyedhall:

.Case in point is Oil.....we were in the middle of an oil boom here in the U.S. due to fracking.......But that has hit the skids due to Saudia Arabia flooding the market with oil that has a per barrel costs of production that we simply cannot compete with....

So the result is that nearly one third of our wells are now sitting idle....and many refineries have been or are still on what many believe is a company induced strike...because our costs of production is simply too high to compete with Saudia Arabia......But that Is the free market at work....

---

Are you aware that the Obama administration has again behind closed doors imposed new federal restrictive regulations on fracking?

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/26/new-federal-regulations-threaten-fracking-boom/

posted 03-27-2015 01:58 PM                  

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp-trade-deal-kept

The Times' report explains that this clause also "... giv[es] greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers."

Advantage: Foreign Firms

While ISDS would give American multinational corporations tremendous powers over other governments, it places non-U.S. corporations (and, of course, non-U.S. subsidiaries of American multinational corporations) at a tremendous advantage over U.S. firms by giving only them - not U.S.-based firms - this right to challenge U.S. laws and regulations.

"supporters of the deal say 'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.'
------------------
Why doesn't a jock point to the sky and say "thank you lord" when the play DOESN'T work?

posted 03-27-2015 04:05 PM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by BeWare:
From what I have read opposition to this is bipartisan in the Congress so hopefully this is DOA.

---

Only if we all contact our legislators.

posted 03-28-2015 11:58 AM                  

Last month Senator Warren criticized a provision reported to be in the proposed trade deal called "Investor-State Dispute Settlement" or ISDS.

ISDS allows multinational corporations to challenge laws passed by our government -- things like environmental or safety regulations -- to potentially win millions of dollars in "damages" that would have to be paid by American taxpayers. And they could do all this without ever having to go to court in the United States.

The text of the proposed TPP deal has been a secret -- until now. The New York Times and WikiLeaks got their hands on the TPP text, and it's bad. The TPP would go further in undermining our laws and regulations, and it would benefit more big businesses than we'd originally believed.

The recent leak shows that the TPP would allow corporations to use ISDS to challenge “Buy America” or “buy local” rules that favor domestic manufacturing. The new leak also shows that safeguards to limit the use of ISDS, shown in a 2012 leak of the TPP, are now gone.

With the text of the secretive TPP exposed, the stakes in Elizabeth Warren's fight against ISDS and the TPP are greater than ever. Chip in $3 or more to help us ramp up our campaign in the coming days.

ISDS is a secret tribunal. Its members would be corporate lobbyists who would not be acting in the best interests of you or me. The purpose of ISDS is to help big corporations make more money at our expense.

Senator Warren gave some good examples of how corporations are using ISDS to attack laws designed to help working families: They sued Egypt for raising the minimum wage, and they sued Germany for eliminating nuclear power to keep its citizens safe.

Right now, Philip Morris is suing Australia for implementing tobacco regulations designed to cut smoking rates and protect children. Ironically, the leak shows that Australia has insisted it not be subject to ISDS -- yet our own government still intends to make the United States vulnerable to ISDS and the big corporations.

We can stop the TPP. The first step is to prevent Congress from giving Fast Track authority to the White House, limiting the power of leaders like Elizabeth Warren to fix this bad deal.

Will you help DFA build our campaign to stop Fast Track and the TPP -- and stand strong with Elizabeth Warren against ISDS?

posted 03-28-2015 02:22 PM                  

WHAT THE ARTICLE DOESNT SAY IS IF ANY OF THOSE REDICULOUS LAWSUITS EVER PRODUCED ONE DIME IN DAMAGES......FROM WHAT I CAN READ ON THIS....THEY DID NOT...

A LOT OF HYPE ABOUT THIS...BUT WITHOUT STATING WHAT THE DEMOCRATS REALLY HATE.....LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD IN HIGHLYT UNIONIZED INDUSTRIES...

posted 03-28-2015 03:44 PM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by attyedhall:
WELL IF ELIZABETH WARREN IS AGAINST IT...IT MUST BE SOMETHING THAT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY.....

WHAT THE ARTICLE DOESNT SAY IS IF ANY OF THOSE REDICULOUS LAWSUITS EVER PRODUCED ONE DIME IN DAMAGES......FROM WHAT I CAN READ ON THIS....THEY DID NOT...

A LOT OF HYPE ABOUT THIS...BUT WITHOUT STATING WHAT THE DEMOCRATS REALLY HATE.....LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD IN HIGHLYT UNIONIZED INDUSTRIES...

THAT BEING SAID....THERE APPEARS TO BE A SELLOUT BY SOMEONE FOR THE PHARMACUTICAL COMPANIES IN PROTECTING PATENTS OVERSEAS FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME SO THAT THEY CAN KEEP RAPING US ON PRESCRIPTIONS BEFORE GENERICS ARE ALLOWED..

---

posted 03-28-2015 04:31 PM                  

quote:

---

Originally posted by padroo:

We don't need another bad trade deal, NAFTA was the worst thing Bill Clinton did. We don't need more cheap imports from more countries taking jobs away. Have any of the trade deals really helped American labor? Free trade is one thing, fair trade is something else.

---

we will never agree on this...you are coming from this from a union perspective. NAFTA WAS THE BEST THING CLINTON EVER DID FOR THE AVERAGE FAMILY IN THE U.S.

IT ALLOWED FOR FREE TRADE...WITHOUT RESTRICTIVE TARRIFFS TO PROTECT CERTAIN INDUSTRIES..

YEARS AGO,(IN THE 70'S) I WAS A PURCHASING MANAGER FOR ALLIS CHALMERS. THE UNIONS....AND BIG STEEL WAS CONSTANTLY LOBBYING FOR...AND GETTING THE CONGRESS TO PASS RESTRICTIVE TARRIFFS ON JAPANEESE STEEL...UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING AMERICAN JOBS...WITHIN MINUTES OF EACH TARRIFF BEING PASSED BY CONGRESSS...WE WOULD RECEIVE A FAX PRICE INCREASE FROM THE U.S STEEL MANAUFACTURERS.....

ONCE REAGON GOT ELECTED, MOST OF THOSE TARRIFFS WERE REPEALED, MAKING STEEL MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE..AND FORCING THE UNITED STATES STEEL INDUSTRY TO MODERNISE TO KEEP UP WITH JAPAN....GARY INDIANA USED TO EMPLOY 40,000 STEEL WORKERS......TODAY, GARY PRODUCES MORE STEEL THAN IN THE 70'S WITH FEWER THAN 10,000 EMPLOYEES....BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO MODERNISE....NOT SIMPLE BE COMPLACENT BECAUSE THEY HAD CONGRESS IN THEIR POCKET..

I KNOW THE UNIONS HATE FREE TRADE...THEY ALWAYS HAVE AND PROBABLY ALWAYS WILL....THEY WANT TO PROTECT THEIR TURF...AND DONT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT THE ECONOMY...OR PEOPLE.....BUT FREE TRADE...IF IT TRULY IS FREE TRADE WILL ALWAYS SEEK OUT EFFICIENCY AND THE BEST PRODUCT AT THE BEST PRICE....

SO ON THIS ONE....LETS JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE....

BUT BY ALL MEASURES, NAFTA IS CONSIDERED TO BE A GIANT SUCCESS.....AND A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WILL GO A LONG WAY TO OPENING MARKETS....WHICH IS A GOOD THING

posted 03-28-2015 07:47 PM                  

Foreign steel mills export their unemployment to the U.S.

What would change under any new agreement when the old agreement has never worked.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/16895/subsidized_steel_is_ruining_us_industry
http://hbr.org/2008/06/subsidies-and-the-china-price

http://www.epi.org/publication/surging-steel-imports/

posted 03-28-2015 08:36 PM                  

http://www.quora.com/What-industries-in-the-United-States-are-subsidized-by-the-gove rnment

posted 03-28-2015 10:48 PM                  

Read this about China and I consider Reuters a reliable source
With China making 27% of the worlds steel.

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - Subsidies accounted for four-fifths of the profits reported by Chinese steel companies in the first half of this year, a dramatic increase in reliance on state support that illustrates starkly the industrial weakness that is an increasing drag on the economy.

posted 03-29-2015 07:28 AM                  

the ariticle I cited states that American steel is the 11th most subsidized industry in the United States.

the real issue here is that the United States unit costs of production is simply too high to compete globally....the same is true in textiles, which is why that industry has largely left the U.S....and more recently, oil, where we are for the first time in history able to compete globally....but only if the price is higher....i.e...at $3.00 a gallon, U.S. oil can compete...but at $2.00 gallon, we cannot, because our unit costs is simply too high, as compared to the Mideast...(saudia Arabia, iran...etc) (I am using $3.00/gallon as an example..i don't know what the actual breakeven costs is)

The union mantra is that the wages paid by foreign countries is too low..and that is not altogether false....but the countervailing arguument is that the wages paid here are simply too high to compete globally.

so unless the u.s companies can be sooo much more efficient than the competition....to which U.S. steel has done to some degree...with mini mills and newer equiptment...theyh simply cannot compete globally

now with underdeveloped countries getting into steel....India, Pakistan...Ukrain...well the long term just isn't very rosy for U.S. steel where the starting wage is about $90,000.

so that is econ 101 for this sunday morning....

posted 03-29-2015 09:02 AM                  

Damn,,,now I will not have to watch the talking political heads this morning.... lol