As TPP Opposition Soars, Corporate Media Blackout Deafening

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
www.commondreams.org...

Let's not forget how wonderful (sic) was for the US, Mexico - don't know about Canada, they seem to be fairly unscathed.

We have to keep making noise on this one - left and right agree on this one. Only politicians and their masters (big business) are in favor of this monstrousity.



Last week, more than 550 groups, representing tens of millions of individual members, signed a letter to members of Congress urging them to vote against a push by President Obama for 'fast track' authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a so-called "free trade" now under negotation between the U.S. and eleven other Pacific rim nations.


The week before that, another 50 groups launched an energized online campaign called StopFastTrack.com in order to kill the TPP agreement—dubbed "NAFTA on steroids"—that they say "threatens everything you care about: democracy, jobs, the environment, and the Internet."


Here is a link to the letter with all 550 signatories:

www.citizenstrade.org...

The fast track bill was introduced by Rep Dave Camp and Rep Max Baucus (see original reference)

Economists write that "Free Trade" treaties exacerbate U.S. income Inequality. (www.citizen.org...)

Since 1941 standard economic theory has held that trade liberalization will contribute to greater
income inequality in developed countries like the United States. In the early 1990s, as U.S.
income inequality soared amid the enactment of U.S. “free trade” deals, a spate of economic
studies put the theory to the test, aiming to determine the relative contribution of trade flows to
the rise in U.S. income inequality. The result was an academic consensus that trade flows
had, in fact, contributed to rising U.S. income inequality. The only debate was the extent of
the blame to be placed on trade, with most studies estimating that between 10 and 40 percent
of the rise in inequality during the 1980s and early 1990s stemmed from trade flows.



The extraordinary trade authority, which Congress has refused to grant for 15 of the past 20 years, would suspend normal congressional procedures for consideration of the controversial TPP, which Obama hopes to sign soon. Who supports TPP and fast track? The corporate lobby that worked its butt off to defeat Obama’s re-election.


From original reference.



Already several dozen Republican House members have announced their opposition to new fast track powers for Obama. A conservative grassroots campaign is gearing up against fast track and TPP.



From original reference.

And to close from the key reference:



What could unite the A-Z of the Democratic base and conservative grassroots activists? Um, could be the 20 devastating years of damage by the North American Free-Trade Agreement experienced by American workers and communities across the political spectrum



Come on friends, let's put ideological bickering aside and work for the good of the whole U.S.




posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Here's another article on the subject:

www.truth-out.org...

... which points out:



This week Baucus will be confirmed as the new US ambassador to China and Sen. Ron Wyden will take his place. This creates a new risk. Sen. Wyden is a believer in corporate trade agreements. His constituents call him a “Free Traitor.” He has said he did not support the Baucus bill but we understand he may be working on a ‘new and improved’ fast track.


It has video


There must be something about the Trans-Pacifc Partnership from right of center. It would be nice to hear that side of the arugment. Tea-Party, Liberterians should all be up in arms.

I'll ask again for sources for good well sourced news and commentary from the right.

Please help.
edit on 6-2-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


"Free Trade" teaties give free trade a bad name. What the government calls free trade is hundreds of pages of heavy trade regulations. A genuine free trade agreement would never be more than a page long. It could be a couple sentences:

"You send whatever is allowed here to here, and we send whatever is allowed there, over there, in any quantities whatsoever."

There you go, a one sentence free trade agreement. THAT agreement would be very beneficial to every country who signs with any other country who signs, contrary to what most people actually think.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

fractal2
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


"You send whatever is allowed here to here, and we send whatever is allowed there, over there, in any quantities whatsoever."



It's the "allowed here" and "allowed there" that take up all the paper. Sheesh.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


First off, Canada is not unscathed in any of these alleged "free trade" agreements. We got hit with a 120 billion dollar bailout for our "rock solid" banks, that Harper lied about in 2008. Our economy is in the toilet, unemployment is higher than reported by government shills and our manufacturing base is pooched. Harper is in the middle of a fire sale, meaning he his selling off our resources. A good example of the crap that has been caused with NAFTA is propane prices, it jumped from $0.57 a liter to $1.02 a liter over a three month period because of NAFTA, the US has first dibs on our resources BEFORE Canadians. This created an artificial "inability to supply" problem which drove the price up in Canada.

NAFTA, GATT, TAP and the TPP all have one thing in common, they do not benefit the people, they benefit corporations and allow the lining of politicians pockets. NAFTA created employment imbalances and wealth transfer to other countries like Mexico by shifting the manufacturing base. The TAP and TPP are very similar in that they legitimize sending jobs offshore, eg wealth transfer to the benefit of the corporations. They leave the government holding the bag when it can no longer produce a rational tax base, which means the government has to borrow money from the people creating the problem in the first place. The money government borrows of course falls on the backs of taxpayers and the ever shrinking tax base.

But there is one other thing the TAP and TPP provide for business, the ability to sue governments for loss of business due to regulations and laws. You know who gets to pay those settlements huh? The taxpayers, so we have another form of wealth transfer, this time directly to the corporations. So, the TAP and TPP remove whatever vestiges of sovereignty were left as by signing the treaty the government agrees to the terms which means the treaty supersedes domestic law and any constitution.

The nightmare has already begun ages ago with that treasonous bastard Mulroney signing NAFTA. He actually should have been tried for treason and hung for that bought and paid for signing. Harper is actually worse, the rabid piece of crap just keeps on going, tearing down every piece of legislation that protects Canadians and Canadian resources.

It appears Obama is no better.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 2/6.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
"Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Job Loss, Lower Wages and Higher Drug Prices"
source: www.citizen.org...

Brother Nathanael cutting loose on the dark side, its prima donnas, and their TPP agenda.


edit on 6-2-2014 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
 


Thank you for cluing me in on the 'free trade' effects in Canada. Even though you are our media really doesn't 'do' international news. The occasional sensationalistic terrorist story perhaps, but news, naw.

Stay warm.



posted on Feb, 6 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Remember Ross Perot he said way back when, that if NAFTA was passed all you would hear is a great sucking sound as dollars and jobs were destroyed... Maybe he was psychic or smarter than many gave him credit for .



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Yep and maybe Perot was warned not to try a presidential run too back then....i always thought so.......
The free trade agreements are not for the peoples benefit....period.
They are for the impoverishment of the ones who had the resources and will to make their voices heard at one time....but are now pretty much worn too thin to do SFA about whats going on.....
They are making the world a level playing field by tearing us down instead of building the third world up.....



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Essentially these free trade agreements amount to the ICBs being free to play by a completely different set of rules than everyone else.

It like playing poker, where one of the players has 5 aces they insert into the game at any time, and retrieve at the end of each hand.

In this case, we are supposed to abide by an extremely lopsided contract, and should we managed to somehow come out ahead, the ICBs will simply change the rules on their whim to eliminate what ever games we might have made, contract be damned.






top topics



 
8

log in

join