SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Zero Hedge reports
[May 12], in an embarrassing setback for the president, Senate Democrats in a 52-45 vote--short of the required 60 supporters--blocked a bill that would give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to expedite trade agreements through Congress, a major defeat for Obama and his allies who "say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration's economic agenda."
The passage failed after a leading pro-trade Democrat said he would oppose the bill: Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he would vote no and his loss was a major blow to hopes of attracting a sufficient number Democrats to get 60 "yes" votes in the chamber.
According to Reuters, the Senate vote was one of a series of obstacles to be overcome that hinged on the support of a handful of Democrats. The White House has launched a campaign blitz directed at them in support of granting the president authority to speed trade deals through Congress.
Fast-track legislation gives lawmakers the right to set negotiating objectives but restricts them to a yes-or-no vote on trade deals such as the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama.
[...]Why is Obama scrambling to ram the TPP bill through Congress as fast as possible?
[...]This enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.
[Investor-State Dispute Settlement (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 [read: corporate-friendly tribunal]. 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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:00PM
my father was very anticommunist. He repeatedly asserted that we should embargo all communist nations, as well as all other nations that trade with the communists.
I don't think that would have been a good idea.
One reason is that if we trade with other countries, we are less likely to go to war with them. Consider that while Taiwan and Mainland China each assert sovereignty over each other, they have yet to actually attack each other. They don't talk about it a whole lot but there is a great deal of trade between the two.
My concern here is national sovereignty specifically. There is a very good reason for democracy, among the reasons is to prevent private businesses from running the government.
A friend once gave me a copy of a Manila newspaper, the employment ads were very specific about the gender and age of the desired employees: "Seamstress wanted, female, 25-30 years old", "Electrical engineer, male, 35-40" years old.
In the US, just to advertise that would be flatly illegal. Why are we signing treaties to encourage trade with countries like that?
Why don't we sign a treaty instead, that would remove trade barriers after verfication that age, gender, racial discrimination were no longer permitted, that collective bargaining was permitted, that toxic waste was not dumped into the local waterways?
You like your smart gadgets? Do you know what they're made out of? Do you know where their raw materials are mined? What happens to the waste from those mining operations?
"In the Maquiladora, toxic waste is surfacting the pavement right off the roads," -- Charles de Bardeleben
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:38PM
Why are we signing treaties to encourage trade with countries like that?
You do realize that those practices are A RESULT of "free trade". Right?
It's completely possible to put a high tariff on a country with poor labor practices.
USA did it for many decades--back when the country was strong. [metrolyrics.com]
(Released in 1982.) [wikipedia.org]
Wanna bet Haggard voted for Reagan (and the beginning of the actual end)?
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:09AM
You do realize that those practices are A RESULT of "free trade". Right?
I assume you realize the labor practices would be even worse in the absence of "free trade"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:29PM
[Citation Needed]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 15 2015, @12:12AM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:47PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War/ [wikipedia.org]
China and Taiwan have repeatedly attacked each other. Nothing recent, but their relationship is fairly dicey. They have never signed any agreement or treaty to actually end the war.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"