For anyone that says Obama is a "liberal" or a "socialist"

[Jim Finklestein]

 

 

Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Political Powers In Secret Trade Deal

 

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation, according to two internal memos obtained by The Huffington Post.

The memos, which come from a government involved in the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade negotiations, detail continued disputes in the talks over the deal. They reveal broad disagreement over a host of key positions, and general skepticism that an agreement can be reached by year-end. The Obama administration has urged countries to reach a deal by New Year's Day, though there is no technical deadline.

One memo, which was heavily redacted before being provided to HuffPost, was written ahead of a new round of talks in Singapore this week. Read the full text of what HuffPost received here. (Note: Ellipses indicate redacted text. Text in brackets has been added by a third party.) Another document, a chart outlining different country positions on the text, dates from early November, before the round of negotiations in Salt Lake City, Utah. View the chart here. HuffPost was unable to determine which of the 11 non-U.S. nations involved in the talks was responsible for the memo. The Obama administration was not available for comment Sunday evening.

Previously leaked TPP documents have sparked alarm among global health experts, Internet freedom activists, environmentalists and organized labor, but are adamantly supported by American corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Obama administration has deemed negotiations to be classified information -- banning members of Congress from discussing the American negotiating position with the press or the public. Congressional staffers have been restricted from viewing the documents.

One of the most controversial provisions in the talks includes new corporate empowerment language insisted upon by the U.S. government, which would allow foreign companies to challenge laws or regulations in a privately run international court. Under World Trade Organization treaties, this political power to contest government law is reserved for sovereign nations. The U.S. has endorsed some corporate political powers in prior trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the scope of what laws can be challenged appears to be much broader in TPP negotiations.

"The United States, as in previous rounds, has shown no flexibility on its proposal, being one of the most significant barriers to closing the chapter, since under the concept of Investment Agreement nearly all significant contracts that can be made between a state and a foreign investor are included," the memo reads. "Only the U.S. and Japan support the proposal."

Under NAFTA, companies including Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical and Eli Lilly have attempted to overrule Canadian regulations on offshore oil drilling, fracking, pesticides, drug patents and other issues. Companies could challenge an even broader array of rules under the TPP language.

New standards concerning access to key medicines appear to be equally problematic for many nations. The Obama administration is insisting on mandating new intellectual property rules in the treaty that would grant pharmaceutical companies long-term monopolies on new medications. As a result, companies can charge high prices without regard to competition from generic providers. The result, public health experts have warned, would be higher prices around the world, and lack of access to life-saving drugs in poor countries. Nearly every intellectual property issue in the November chart is opposed by a broad majority of the 12 nations. The December memo describes 119 "outstanding issues" that remain unresolved between the nations on intellectual property matters.

Also according to the December memo, the U.S. has reintroduced a proposal that would hamper government health services from negotiating lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. The proposal appears to have been universally rejected earlier in the talks, according to the memo.

Australia and New Zealand have medical boards -- similar to one established under Obamacare -- that allow the government to reject expensive new drugs for the public health system, or negotiate lower prices with drug companies that own patents on them. If a new drug does not offer sufficient benefits over existing generic drugs, the boards can reject spending taxpayer money on the new medicines. They can also refuse to pay high prices for new drugs. The Obama administration has been pushing to ban these activities by national boards, which would lock in big profits for U.S. drug companies. Obamacare, notably, sought to mimic the behavior of these boards to lower domestic health care costs.

The U.S. is also facing major resistance on bank regulation standards. The Obama administration is seeking to curtail the use of "capital controls" by foreign governments. These can include an extremely broad variety of financial tools, from restricting lending in overheated markets to denying mass international outflows of currency during a financial panic. The loss of these tools would dramatically limit the ability of governments to prevent and stem banking crises.

"The positions are still paralyzed," the December memo reads, referring to the Financial Services Chapter. "The United States shows zero flexibility."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/08/tpp-trade-agreement_n_4409211.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

[|Elflocko|]

Worst

 

Socialist

 

Ever

[Homer_Rice]

Best bit I've read this past week; edited transcript of speech given by David Simon of "The Wire" fame:

 

"There are now two Americas..."

[MichaelWeston]

Best bit I've read this past week; edited transcript of speech given by David Simon of "The Wire" fame:

 

"There are now two Americas..."

I always appreciate your referrals. Great read.

 

"People are saying I don't need anything but my own ability to earn a profit. I'm not connected to society. I don't care how the road got built, I don't care where the firefighter comes from, I don't care who educates the kids other than my kids. I am me. It's the triumph of the self. I am me, hear me roar."

 

"

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenile notion and it's still being argued in my country passionately and we're going down the tubes. And it terrifies me because I'm astonished at how comfortable we are in absolving ourselves of what is basically a moral choice. Are we all in this together or are we all not?"

[alleycat]

I always appreciate your referrals. Great read.

 

"People are saying I don't need anything but my own ability to earn a profit. I'm not connected to society. I don't care how the road got built, I don't care where the firefighter comes from, I don't care who educates the kids other than my kids. I am me. It's the triumph of the self. I am me, hear me roar."

 

"

The idea that the market will solve such things as environmental concerns, as our racial divides, as our class distinctions, our problems with educating and incorporating one generation of workers into the economy after the other when that economy is changing; the idea that the market is going to heed all of the human concerns and still maximise profit is juvenile. It's a juvenile notion and it's still being argued in my country passionately and we're going down the tubes. And it terrifies me because I'm astonished at how comfortable we are in absolving ourselves of what is basically a moral choice. Are we all in this together or are we all not?"

 

Yup. He nails it...

 

And it WILL be the brick.

[Jamie_B]

Best bit I've read this past week; edited transcript of speech given by David Simon of "The Wire" fame:

 

"There are now two Americas..."

 

 

this is an amazing read

[|Bunghole|]

Jesus. That's pretty scary. And this from a TV producer/creator/whatever that lives in wealth! Ugh. 

[T-Dub]

 
 
this is an amazing read

Yeah it was.

OT kinda but is anyone else watching Treme? A lot of what he talks about driving that series.

[Jamie_B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNttT7hDKsk&feature=share

 

 

 

Here is that speech with a Q&A after it.

[alleycat]

Yeah it was.

OT kinda but is anyone else watching Treme? A lot of what he talks about driving that series.

 

Assuming you saw The Wire? Best show in the history of television, and certainly a lot of what he's talking about there as well. The first season also comes with his commentary, and is a pretty amazing listen.

[Madieu Superstar]

I would describe O's politics as soft marxism, hard crony capitalism.

[|Elflocko|]

I would describe O's politics as soft marxism, hard crony capitalism.

 

:blink:

 

:24:

[Jamie_B]

I would describe O's politics as soft marxism, hard crony capitalism.

 

 

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

[alleycat]

I would describe O's politics as soft marxism, hard crony capitalism.

 

Hey guys, nice to see you on this side, lol.  I felt bad but wasn't sure we'd get anyone to show.

 

So, as for your Obama comment... I completely agree.

 

Although I think soft Marxism is already accusing him of being much further to the left than he really is.  Sure, he's going to placate his followers with a bunch of leftist rhetoric, but watch what the guy DOES. 

 

You can't become president in this country unless you assure the Bankers and Media owners that you are going to take care of them.

 

And this is the great irony of the Capitalist mistake as we now have it (and bare with me here). Unfettered capitalism sounds like a great idea, but without regulation, what we see is that cronyism takes over - to the max.  Of course, regulation means government, and that often means bloat and inefficiency and whole 'nother level of corruption and cronyism. 

 

So what do you do?

 

I think one way (short of the violence I think will prove to be the only way), in an ideal world, is that you let capitalism police itself, by allowing individuals to profit from exposing graft, cronyism, corruption. 

 

Of course, we'd need legislators and courts to break up the monopolies and trusts that restriction free markets and free flows at every turn, but unless you turn controlling business into a business, I don't see how you can break the choke-hold these guys have on the status quo. 

 

Except for blood.

 

And I'd just like to say, before people start jumping all over each other, it would be nice to have an intelligent discussion where we can listen to the merits of the other guy and be open-minded.  THIS is the biggest problem going right now, IMO: most of the country is suffering from the same ails, but the media corporations have turned politics into ratings by polarizing the conversation, and the key to that is to focus on the outlandish shit the "other side" is saying - which gets everyone reactive and worked up and fleeing in the other direction.  It sells TV, but it's lethal for the long-term health of the country.

And for the record, I lean so far to the left that I come back around the other side :)

[Madieu Superstar]

 

Hey guys, nice to see you on this side, lol.  I felt bad but wasn't sure we'd get anyone to show.

 

So, as for your Obama comment... I completely agree.

 

Although I think soft Marxism is already accusing him of being much further to the left than he really is.  Sure, he's going to placate his followers with a bunch of leftist rhetoric, but watch what the guy DOES. 

 

You can't become president in this country unless you assure the Bankers and Media owners that you are going to take care of them.

 

And this is the great irony of the Capitalist mistake as we now have it (and bare with me here). Unfettered capitalism sounds like a great idea, but without regulation, what we see is that cronyism takes over - to the max.  Of course, regulation means government, and that often means bloat and inefficiency and whole 'nother level of corruption and cronyism. 

 

So what do you do?

 

I think one way (short of the violence I think will prove to be the only way), in an ideal world, is that you let capitalism police itself, by allowing individuals to profit from exposing graft, cronyism, corruption. 

 

Of course, we'd need legislators and courts to break up the monopolies and trusts that restriction free markets and free flows at every turn, but unless you turn controlling business into a business, I don't see how you can break the choke-hold these guys have on the status quo. 

 

Except for blood.

 

And I'd just like to say, before people start jumping all over each other, it would be nice to have an intelligent discussion where we can listen to the merits of the other guy and be open-minded.  THIS is the biggest problem going right now, IMO: most of the country is suffering from the same ails, but the media corporations have turned politics into ratings by polarizing the conversation, and the key to that is to focus on the outlandish shit the "other side" is saying - which gets everyone reactive and worked up and fleeing in the other direction.  It sells TV, but it's lethal for the long-term health of the country.

And for the record, I lean so far to the left that I come back around the other side :)

I'm all for a revolution, I, in fact, stated that Egypt had become  more of a democracy than the U.S. when they forcefully threw out Morsi.He wasn't governing by the people so they went to the streets and threw him out. That's not going to happen here, In my opinion, not even if things get as bad as in Greece. It's a different culture with a populace that really doesn't care. I actually believe you aren't being cynical enough in your beliefs. What would be the result of a revolution? What type of governing would come from that? Would corruption be wiped off the map as a result? of course not, people are intrinsically evil, especially when it comes to greed. After this revolution occurs, the first person who figures out a way to profit off the new government will start the corrupt process all over again.

 

As for your belief that Obama is not a soft Marxist, I'll agree to disagree. Obviously, his rhetoric is all the way to the left, but his actions are there as well in many instances. The welfare state has grown remarkably under him and his terrible predecessor. So the money being taxed from the earners, is being given to those who don't. Obamacare's whole basis is to provide insurance for the those who cannot afford it. How do you provide insurance for those who cannot afford it? Subsidies. How do you give them subsidies when we're broke? The answer, inflated premiums and higher taxes on those who can afford it. 

[Jamie_B]

I defy anyone to look at the private insurance system that is Obamacare and tell me he is a Marxist, hell even a socialist, that system is fully and wholly fascist.  

[Jamie_B]

and the Ayn Rand rhetoric needs to stop, the mathmatical fact is that unemployment insurance and welfare benefits are a far greater stimulus than any tax cut

[alleycat]

I defy anyone to look at the private insurance system that is Obamacare and tell me he is a Marxist, hell even a socialist, that system is fully and wholly fascist.  

 

Yeah, I'd fight for a true universal health care system (or whatever you want to call it).  Lord knows it's the only control mechanisms that will stop the corporate health care profiteers (whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?)

 

 

and the Ayn Rand rhetoric needs to stop, the mathmatical fact is that unemployment insurance and welfare benefits are a far greater stimulus than any tax cut

 

This is where the right wing logic falls apart.  When poor people get a little bit more money, they spend it, thereby stimulating the economy.  When the wealthy get mountains of money, they continue to stash it away.  And most of the investment vehicles these days don't aren't actually "investing" in anything, the way we used to think of the term (like companies with big ideas that want to offer new products or services).  Now, investors are just betting on bets in a game that's been fixed from the start to benefit themselves.

 

And what happens when they whole thing comes crashing down? Well, the very same government they've bought off to allow that behavior will swoop in with the little people's tax dollars to bail them out - so they can do it all over again. 

 

The fact of the matter is that the massive wealth disparities we are seeing over the last 40 years IS simply a redistribution. Historically, (from WWII on), the average income of the bottom 80% of Americans was rising steadily, pretty much in line with American Productivity.  However, with the erosion of any kind of worker protections (and the ability of business to outsource, cut promised benefits, etc.), businesses have now systematically taken the fruits of that productivity and, rather than improve the lot of their entire company's, simply gobbled those gains up in the form of profit-taking. 

 

How else do we explain corporate CEOs who take $100 million pay packages even when their companies aren't performing.  The system as we have it in this country now isn't very different from the feudal one of landed gentry, where the many serfs toil away so that the priviliged few can go on living off the fruits of that labor. 

 

You can call your politics whatever you want, but what you can't do is deny the historical reality that this is what's happened, and how it's happened. 

 

The thing I'd like to discuss with a group of thoughtful people is, regardless of your politics, what can we really DO about this?

[Madieu Superstar]

and the Ayn Rand rhetoric needs to stop, the mathmatical fact is that unemployment insurance and welfare benefits are a far greater stimulus than any tax cut

[Madieu Superstar]

For who, bums? I get it, poor people spend, not save, so me, the working schmuck should continue to be taxed through the roof for this reason. Tell the bums to get a job. If there aren't any, deport the illegals and make the welfare recipients work in the fields until they find something better. I have no problem with people needing a little help, especially in an economy like this, but font tell me they can't work at McDonald's while they are looking. There are entire towns down south on disability. I'm glad they take that money and spend it. I sure wish I still that money

[CincyInDC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw0jF5R6qZY

[|Bunghole|]

Obama is a liberal.

[Jamie_B]

For who, bums? I get it, poor people spend, not save, so me, the working schmuck should continue to be taxed through the roof for this reason. Tell the bums to get a job. If there aren't any, deport the illegals and make the welfare recipients work in the fields until they find something better. I have no problem with people needing a little help, especially in an economy like this, but font tell me they can't work at McDonald's while they are looking. There are entire towns down south on disability. I'm glad they take that money and spend it. I sure wish I still that money

 

 

Are you even aware of the number of working poor in this country? Hell your own example of McDonald's, is telling their employees how to collect welfare. The number of people working that collect welfare? That the majority of people on SNAP benefits are the elderly and children? Even the purpose of unemployment insurance? This welfare queen myth is exactly that a myth. 

 

 

And that doesnt even talk about the fact that corporate welfare is BY FAR greater spending than social welfare. 

 

But you know lets call grandma a bum while we tell her to enjoy her cat foot.

 

This is sociopath thinking and I dont have a problem calling a sociopath a sociopath.

[alleycat]

For who, bums? I get it, poor people spend, not save, so me, the working schmuck should continue to be taxed through the roof for this reason. Tell the bums to get a job. If there aren't any, deport the illegals and make the welfare recipients work in the fields until they find something better. I have no problem with people needing a little help, especially in an economy like this, but font tell me they can't work at McDonald's while they are looking. There are entire towns down south on disability. I'm glad they take that money and spend it. I sure wish I still that money

 

Actually, guess what urban center is closest to the the national epicenter for disability?  Cincinnati.

 

But disability has become widely subject to fraud.  And welfare to work worked.  But there is no fantasy land where we can live without taxes.  Or lots of them.  I've spent much of my life in the developing world, and believe me, spend time in any of those places for very long and you'll clamor for taxes (indeed, there is a revolutionary movement in several of these countries that sees taxes as the very pathway to stability and ending corruption, for, once the people all have a stake in the government, accountability will increase).

 

The problem in America is our belief in the mistaken myth of individualism and self-sufficiency.  A human being, working on his own, can produce about $500/year worth of agricultural product on which to subsist himself.  Anything beyond that is a product of society.  Any wealth you amass aside from that is also a product of society.  The interconnected web of Society is essential for growth, but individuals won't, out the charity of their hearts, invest in the kinds of infrastructure and other services that allow that movement.  And so that's where government is needed.

 

But I'd like to take the discussion one step further, and that's this:  what's the moral thing to do?

 

Is the moral thing to look out for myself and tell my neighbor to go fuck himself?  I always find it ironic that the same people who decry "commies," which was originally so threatening because of it's antagonism with religion seem to have now confused the issue. In fact, it was a genius move of the American political right to conflate them.   And, I understand the Protestant Work Ethic, but c'mon.  Because I can tell you one thing for sure:

 

Jesus would have been a socialist.

 

Now, if you want to throw out religion and morality that's one thing, but if you aren't willing to do that, where does that leave you?

[alleycat]

Obama is a liberal.

 

In that sense that he is called a democrat ok.  In the sense that liberalism has been conflated with big government, sure.

 

But in the sense that he's just another politician that is feeding a massive industrial complex, he's no different than "conservatives."  They are all feeding massive beasts, it's just that the names of the beasts are different.

 

What no one has done, and IMO this is one of the things we might want to start doing, is ask what does "better" mean?  What does progress mean?  Is faster and more efficient really producing a better lifestyle for broadest range of people in America?