It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate clears White House-backed trade bill

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Senate clears White House-backed trade bill

In other words Senate clears Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade(or TPP) with a vote of 62-37.



WASHINGTON (AP) — In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation Friday night to strengthen the administration's hand in global trade talks, clearing the way for a highly unpredictable summer showdown in the House.
-Yahoo(AP) Source

Political madness as it's finest. A victory? Got to be kidding. The TPP is being supported not only by the criminals in charge but media outlet's such as shared here by the AP.



The vote was 62-37 to give Obama authority to complete trade deals that Congress could approve or reject, but not change. A total of 48 Republicans supported the measure, but only 14 the Senate's 44 Democrats backed a president of their own party on legislation near the top of his second-term agenda.


Those unfamiliar with the TPP here are references:
aka “NAFTA on steroids.”

NLBS #37: The Trans Pacific Partnership; The Corporate Takeover of Trade Policy
www.abovetopsecret.com...


WikiLeaks had released a chapter from the Trans Pacific Partnership:


Wikileaks reports: “The Investment Chapter highlights the intent of the TPP negotiating parties, led by the United States, to increase the power of global corporations by creating a supra-national court, or tribunal, where foreign firms can “sue” states and obtain taxpayer compensation for “expected future profits”. These investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals are designed to overrule the national court systems. ISDS tribunals introduce a mechanism by which multinational corporations can force governments to pay compensation if the tribunal states that a country’s laws or policies affect the company’s claimed future profits. In return, states hope that multinationals will invest more.

Source


edit on 22-5-2015 by dreamingawake because: sp

edit on 22-5-2015 by dreamingawake because: sources




posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
It will fly, whatever the corporations want, they get.

You know its misleading when they use words like trade and partnership, really its about gaming control of trade and incorporating business and privately owned land through loans and foreclosures.

We'll loan you this bucket of GMO seed and a gallon of Pesticide. When next years seed doesn't sprout and you lose your land , you can drink the fertilizer.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

I really don't like this one bit.

However, there is one point worth mentioning. That is that gov'ts have screwed everything up from day one. There isn't a country in the world, except perhaps Iceland, where mentioning the 'gov't' doesn't get at least a roll of the eyes.

A little voice keeps saying almost anything would better than what we have now. I almost wish there was a '1%' that ran this world, it would better than the reprobates running the show these days.

For example, Military industrial corporations would be met by those corporations that suffer from war. Retail sales, travel, on and on.

Also, it sounds more like a split 'partnership' between traditional gov't and corporations.( it flies in the teeth of history that any group, in this case gov't, willingly gives up their power.)

Still, it seems that it secures the power for both for the long term. Something I'm sure they are in accord with.

Bottom line is if published, members and the full agreement, both the initial AND the long term agenda, then perhaps...just perhaps there might be some validity to it.

Otherwise, better the devil you know than the one you don't.....



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Would this give corporations like Monsanto the power to sue the government of a country if a country bans sales in it's country?

Would this mean that a corporation could sue a country if they didn't allow chlorinated chickens for loss of profit. Would we be forced to buy the fake Chinese eggs? Could this interfere with a state's ability to ban GM food?

Because the US is a big exporter of certain foods that other countries do not want their citizens eating, I feel that this is an appropriate direction to go into. This would hurt Europe a lot.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
So if I understand this correctly, a nation state passes national legislation, for example, banning the use or sale of Monsanto seed stock and pesticides use within their borders.
Monsanto then gets to take that nation state to a closed tribunal, where a panel of corporatists decide that that nation state must compensate Monsanto for not allowing them to breach their national laws or the will of the government and people? Is that about it?

What if that nation state tells the tribunal to go jump in the lake? How will nation states be compelled to recognize any tribunal or the claims it makes? In answer to that, I'm thinking asset seizure and sanctions being imposed, otherwise the tribunal becomes toothless.

Hey, buy our products or we'll send in the drones and warships!


It all does seem a bit chilling though, that not only would this allow corporations to override national laws, but would allow them to be compensated by that nation for potentially lost profits. Who the hell thought this one up? Oh, that's right, the corporations backed by the lobbied and paid for politicians.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Sad day in America.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

Actually, it should read...


"WASHINGTON (AP) — In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation Friday night to strengthen corporation's hand in the administration butt in global trade talks, clearing the way for a highly unpredictable number of corporate lawsuits and dips in the taxpayer capital "pool" if this travesty passes the House.


Say buh bye to any freedoms or money you thought you could save. If you saw how NAFTA killed the economy, the TPP and its sister the TPA will be the backhoe digging the grave and the coffin that carries the remains of the economy.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

How else is Obama going to export America's wealth to the rest of the worlkd?



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Hope you all enjoyed freedom while you had it. Welcome the the United States of Corporate Rule. How long until we have to tattoo a logo across our foreheads to show which master we serve???

I'd prefer something small like "Coke" rather than "abercrombie and fitch" personally.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

In other words, at least 62 people have fatter wallets.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: dreamingawake

I really don't like this one bit.

However, there is one point worth mentioning. That is that gov'ts have screwed everything up from day one. There isn't a country in the world, except perhaps Iceland, where mentioning the 'gov't' doesn't get at least a roll of the eyes.

A little voice keeps saying almost anything would better than what we have now. I almost wish there was a '1%' that ran this world, it would better than the reprobates running the show these days.

For example, Military industrial corporations would be met by those corporations that suffer from war. Retail sales, travel, on and on.

Also, it sounds more like a split 'partnership' between traditional gov't and corporations.( it flies in the teeth of history that any group, in this case gov't, willingly gives up their power.)

Still, it seems that it secures the power for both for the long term. Something I'm sure they are in accord with.

Bottom line is if published, members and the full agreement, both the initial AND the long term agenda, then perhaps...just perhaps there might be some validity to it.

Otherwise, better the devil you know than the one you don't.....



Alternative theory: That 1% does run the world, and they're so incompetent that this is the best they can do.

Makes you wonder about humanity doesn't it?



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I have never seen such a united, bi-partisan front AGAINST an issue as I have seen with the TPP.

I have not met a single person who supports this abomination.

Does anyone still think it matters who is in office?

Of the People, by the People, for the People.....What a pathetic joke.

The faster this travesty of government collapses the better.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

How else is Obama going to export America's wealth to the rest of the worlkd?


You do realize the Senate is controlled by Republicans, right? So if you were being accurate, you should've typed "How else are the political leadership from both sides going to export America's wealth to the rest of the world?"



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Obama and Senate Republicans working together on this makes my head spin. WTF is all I got.



A free trade initiative that is pitting President Barack Obama against his own party cleared a major procedural hurdle in the Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday.

The 62-38 vote to end debate on the bill, moving it toward a final vote, was a victory for Obama, who had linked with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, to push the bill despite opposition from Senate Democratic leaders.

"This last vote was a major step forward on this important legislation," said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican who sponsored the bill.

The Senate is now set to vote on changes to the bill, including one that would force the Obama administration to use trade deals to crack down on countries that manipulate the value of their currencies to give their exports a price advantage in the United States — an amendment the White House opposes because it would add a huge new complication into trade negotiations.

Even though Senate passage is ultimately now much more likely, the House could be tougher. There, tea party conservatives are linking up with liberals to form a broader populist opposition than what existed in the Senate.


more



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Well... that's all folks. The House will easily pass this and since Obama's been the one pushing it, he'll of course sign it. This is what happens when you let your government become corporate sponsored.

"But rules hurt the economy!", yeah... seems no rules hurts us all much more, in several different ways.
edit on 5/23/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gully

It'll make more sense if you look past the fake rivalry between the parties. The power brokers for both parties have always been in cahoots at the national level. And they both support free trade. That's why both parties push for new free trade agreements, regardless of what American workers want.

And this won't change as long as American workers keep fighting each other over wedge issues.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Well rat spit... Guess it's time to move the time line closer... I give it 5 years max from the moment that abomination is live and we will have a shooting war inside the usa.

The only reason things are remotely calm right now is most can still make ends meet, this thing will gut what's left of the economy. At that point all bets are off on civility.

Eta: some mouth breathers will still defend Obama.
edit on 23-5-2015 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Gully

It'll make more sense if you look past the fake rivalry between the parties. The power brokers for both parties have always been in cahoots at the national level. And they both support free trade. That's why both parties push for new free trade agreements, regardless of what American workers want.

And this won't change as long as American workers keep fighting each other over wedge issues.

For sure, and Obama isn't running again, so it matters not to him.

And the Democrat senators are content with voting no (so they can say they did when up for re-election)...while letting the Republicans ram it thru.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

How else is Obama going to export America's wealth to the rest of the worlkd?


You do realize the Senate is controlled by Republicans, right? So if you were being accurate, you should've typed "How else are the political leadership from both sides going to export America's wealth to the rest of the world?"


Ya'know, I don't think it matters anymore. Both (all) political parties lead to hell and all roads lead to the abyss. Whether the PTB's plans come to fruition or there is a citizen's revolution, either way it isn't going to be pretty. Like the UN stated, reduce the population to a billion or less or there will be an agrarian society, a serfdom. But there is no sustainability in the present system or a serfdom. I guess we need a war that doesn't damage property to kill off 6 billion plus people. Then the PTB will have what they really want.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Gully

Exactly. The only party that ever fights for everyday Americans is the party that isn't currently in power. But once its candidates get elected, their priorities always conveniently change to "more important" issues. Then the party that lost power conveniently begins "fighting" for everyday Americans again.



new topics




 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join