Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Star Member MannyGoldstein (31,664 posts) I defy ANY member of Congress to give detailed FACTSas to why they oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Give us DETAILED FACTS, not mushy abstractions. This is so important to me that I'll PERSONALLY chip in ten bucks towards their defense fund when they're up on charges for revealing highly-classified information.
I can't remember if cousin nadin is in favor of the TPP.She might be in favor of the TTP.But in either case, sometimes politics makes strange bedfellows.Choke on that mental image for awhile.
Star Member MannyGoldstein (31,664 posts)I defy ANY member of Congress to give detailed FACTSas to why they oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.Give us DETAILED FACTS, not mushy abstractions.This is so important to me that I'll PERSONALLY chip in ten bucks towards their defense fund when they're up on charges for revealing highly-classified information.
Star Member MannyGoldstein (31,664 posts)I defy ANY member of Congress to give detailed FACTSas to why they oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world?One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,†or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in 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.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.
Warren is right: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an abomination — not because of the deal itself, and not because free trade in general is a bad idea. The TPP is an abomination because Obama had a chance to protect American workers from the harm that would inevitably come from such a pact, and he didn’t take it, or at least he hasn’t.
