U.S. Politics - no more cakes

[Shryke]

I kind of love "I don't give a shit since I don't have to worry about being reelected" Obama.

"After the midterm elections, my advisers asked me, 'Mr. President, do you have a bucket list?'" he told those attending the annual dinner of the White House Correspondents' Association.

"And I said, well, I have something that rhymes with bucket list ..."

"Take executive action on immigration? Bucket! New regulations? Bucket!"

[The Fallen]

Have you guys been hearing about the T.P.P.?

Obama and the Republicans are actually teaming up for this. It's a trade agreement similar to NAFTA.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

It's receiving a lot of criticism from Democrats and labor. The former for it's secretive process and the latter for fear it will destroy jobs in the US through outsourcing. It also seems to have language that would allow corporations to sue countries's labor laws on the grounds that it hampers them economically.

It seems to be on a fast track vote so that the language of the agreement can't be changed. I would think something this impactful would be discussed vigorously and open to the public.

[lokisnow]

Have you guys been hearing about the T.P.P.?

Obama and the Republicans are actually teaming up for this. It's a trade agreement similar to NAFTA.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

It's receiving a lot of criticism from Democrats and labor. The former for it's secretive process and the latter for fear it will destroy jobs in the US through outsourcing. It also seems to have language that would allow corporations to sue countries's labor laws on the grounds that it hampers them economically.

It seems to be on a fast track vote so that the language of the agreement can't be changed. I would think something this impactful would be discussed vigorously and open to the public.

DC wants it so it's probably terrible.

But is it better or worse than the status quo?

DC says it's better than the status quo. That inherently proves the opposite to be true.

My take is that the outcome will be a loss of policy autonomy akin to joining the euro, and probably equally catastrophic for non elites.

[Inigima]

It is, in fact, terrible. TPP is awful and should not pass.

[Shryke]

Harper is in favour so I'm automatically suspicious.

[The Fallen]

The ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) is what I was referring to. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

Here is Elizabeth Warren, in an Op-Ed piece, explaining it:

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

If the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts.

[Fragile Bird]

The ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) is what I was referring to. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

Here is Elizabeth Warren, in an Op-Ed piece, explaining it:

Yes? So what. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. US companies have repeatedly used similar provisions against Canada under NAFTA. If the provisions are good enough for American companies to demand compensation from other countries, they are good enough for nations to demand compensation from the US under similar circumstances.

[The Fallen]

I wouldn't support these arbitrators being able to hand taxpayer money from any country to a corporation, which is what the piece is addressing.

This ISDSs were created when corporations were dealing with dictators and such, as a way of protecting their investments. But it's probably not necessary for this partnership since most, if not all, of the countries involved have good legal systems that can be trusted to protect a company's investment in that particular country.

But the ISDS is just one of the issues with the TPP.

[ThinkerX]

Did a bit of googling on this TPP thing. Some real strange bedfellows here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/democrats_working_with_tea_party_against_obama_s_trade_deal_the_president.2.html

Liberals and Tea Party types teaming up to oppose this deal.

Did I just see a unicorn gallop by? Oh well, it's headed in Shrykes direction...

[The Marquis de Leech]

There's something in the TPPA for everyone to hate. Or would be, if we actually knew what was in there.

[awesome possum]

The TPP sounds absolutely horrific. It sounds like something vagabonds living in what used to be streets in a post-apocalyptic world point to as the moment when the corporations began to assert full dominion over the planet and the governments they have bought.

One thing I've read about is how it gives the ability for corporations to sue countries for damages to "future profits." Or sue countries for having such things as regulations.

[The Fallen]

Yes. I've also read that there's language that restricts the web and freedom of speech.

[Fez]

Did a bit of googling on this TPP thing. Some real strange bedfellows here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/democrats_working_with_tea_party_against_obama_s_trade_deal_the_president.2.html

Liberals and Tea Party types teaming up to oppose this deal.

Did I just see a unicorn gallop by? Oh well, it's headed in Shrykes direction...

Not the first time the ends of the political spectrum met up to challenge the middle. There's a few smaller policy shops here in DC whose entire function is working to unite Liberals and Tea Partiers on their common ground stuff; which is mostly trying to cut defense-spending, scaling back surveillance activities, and criminal justice reform. But I could see how something like this could catch their combined ire as well.

[Biglose]

Not the first time the ends of the political spectrum met up to challenge the middle. There's a few smaller policy shops here in DC whose entire function is working to unite Liberals and Tea Partiers on their common ground stuff; which is mostly trying to cut defense-spending, scaling back surveillance activities, and criminal justice reform. But I could see how something like this could catch their combined ire as well.

Well, just that I do not really think that TPP is such a moderate thing anyway. It is more a well, elite thing,isn't it?

[Fez]

Well, just that I do not really think that TPP is such a moderate thing anyway. It is more a well, elite thing,isn't it?

I didn't say moderate, I said middle. And in DC, the middle opinion is the elite opinion (its often the moderate opinion in DC as well though).

[Guest]

So what's the argument for the trade deal? I've heard plenty about how it's a relatively (at least recently) rare intra-party fight for the Dems and that it would give big corporations way too much power. What is allegedly good about it beyond if you're one of the huge entities likely to benefit? That is to ask, it it's terrible BS, what is the argument to sell it? Just growth? Cheaper goods?

[ThinkerX]

So what's the argument for the trade deal? I've heard plenty about how it's a relatively (at least recently) rare intra-party fight for the Dems and that it would give big corporations way too much power. What is allegedly good about it beyond if you're one of the huge entities likely to benefit? That is to ask, it it's terrible BS, what is the argument to sell it? Just growth? Cheaper goods?

Dated, but...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

3. So the big country not in the TPP is ...

That's right: China. The Obama administration's focus on the TPP is part of its "pivot" to Asia — former national security adviser Tom Donilon called it the "centerpiece of our economic rebalancing" and a "platform for regional economic integration" — after too many years of American foreign policy being bogged down in the Middle East. Scholars such as Columbia University's Jagdish Bhagwati are worried that the TPP goes further, as an effort to "contain" China and provide an economic counterweight to it in the region. Many of the TPP's current provisions are designed to exclude China, like those requiring yarn in clothing to come from countries party to the agreement, and could possibly invite retaliation. In addition, 60 senators have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation, which wouldn't directly affect China as a non-member, but could create a framework for broader action.

article goes on to talk about how cumbersome the WTO is. Mentions labor concerns, nifty chart showing how most economic gains go to those at the very top.

Just how reliable is this 'Washington Post' anyhow?

[awesome possum]

Here's a link to a reddit AMA with some people who are actually somewhat knowledgeable about what the TPP is and does (though in the interest of fairness they are against it so everything they say is skewed that way).

Some interesting tidbits from links they provided:

In short, countries would have to abandon any efforts to learn from the mistakes of the US and its experience with the DMCA over the last 12 years, and adopt many of the most controversial aspects of US copyright law in their entirety. At the same time, the US IP chapter does not export the limitations and exceptions in the US copyright regime like fair use, which have enabled freedom of expression and technological innovation to flourish in the US.

and

Leaked documents show the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is pressuring TPP countries to expand pharmaceutical monopoly protections and trade away access to medicines.

and

The TPP would expand the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) "trade" pact model that has spurred massive U.S. trade deficits and job loss, downward pressure on wages, unprecedented levels of inequality and new floods of agricultural imports. The TPP not only replicates, but expands NAFTA's special protections for firms that offshore U.S. jobs. And U.S. TPP negotiators literally used the 2011 Korea FTA – under which exports have fallen and trade deficits have surged – as the template for the TPP.

Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.

The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations. The tribunals would be authorized to order taxpayer compensation to the foreign corporations for the "expected future profits" they surmise would be inhibited by the challenged policies.

Here's Elizabeth Warren on it:

"From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is: Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me, 'They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.'"

[TrackerNeil]

All eyes are on SCOTUS, but another federal court handed down an important decision today.

Calling it "manifestly unconstitutional," a federal judge on Tuesday overturned a new state law that proponents said was designed to prevent criminals from "revictimizing" those harmed by their wrongdoing.

In ruling against the Revictimization Relief Act, U.S. Middle District Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner found that the law, enacted last year, is too broad, too vague and blatantly violates the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution.

This law was enacted by my home state, thus proving that in many ways Pennsylvania is Alabama with cities.

[Balefont]

Sounds like the TPP is a threat to national security if it opens the door for taxpayer money to be coughed up to international corporations for fines and lawsuits.