Obama: Elizabeth Warren is ‘absolutely wrong’

[JackLuis]

U.S. Senate Democrats delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda on Tuesday, blocking debate on a bill that would have smoothed the path for a Pacific trade pact.

The stunning outcome cast doubt on legislation that is key to the Obama administration’s ability to complete the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, a central plank of its pivot to Asia.

Despite a media blitz, democrats are not pleased with the fast tracking of the TPP.

Democrats have also complained that the trade promotion authority (TPA) measure falls short on labor and environmental protections.

As Democratic support for the measure melted away, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, a Republican who was a major force for fast track, declared to reporters that the measure “may be dead.”

 

[JackLuis]

Elizabeth Warren: Don’t believe Obama’s Pacific trade pact hype

Sen. Warren answers back!

“Again and again, proponents of free trade agreements claim that this time, a new trade agreement has strong and meaningful protections,” reads the 16-page report, entitled 'Broken Promises.' “Again and again, those protections prove unable to stop the worst abuses.”

Warren’s report cites previous research from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Labor (DOL) that documents U.S. agencies’ poor record of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the labor provisions of past trade agreements. The DOL rarely pursues enforcement actions, the senator’s report notes, accepting only five claims ever against countries for violating labor standards within trade agreements. Meanwhile, labor-related human rights abuses abound in several nations with U.S. trade pacts, including major violations in Guatemala and Columbia.

Hit the fuckers again Liz!

 

[policywank]

Wow lots of ideology here.

I live in Canada. We have had endless debates about healthcare. We certainly have our flaws and our benefits. My 2 cents worth is that the funding and coverage should be universal (so nobody is left out) but provision should be open (so the competitive market efficiencies can prevail).

I think the fully socialized version lends itself too much to union intransigence and government incompetence while the fully capitalist version is too ruthless and uncaring. What little I know about the U.S. system suggests that tort law is the key cost factor. Insurance costs run amok because ambulance chasing lawyers have the potential to use jury trials (of 12 of your mist ignorant peers) to extract outsized settlements. But what do I know?

What I do believe is that on most substantive topics there is a middle ground. You must be willingly ignorant to miss the fact that fully socialized systems give "lazy" people too much opportunity to milk the system. And you must be equally ignorant not to recognize the potential abuse and neglect of the vulnerable and less fortunate in an entirely competitive environment. Neither communism or law of the jungle represent a place I want to live.

Much of the challenge lies in these extreme views of right or wrong, good or bad. Ideally we have a competitive environment that encourages efficiency and rewards excellence but maintains enough compassion that we don't cut bed usage by putting our elderly on the ice flows (an absurd claim and metaphor about Cabadisn healthcare from conservative American pundits). You'll never convince me that people with guaranteed jobs and pensions won't ever sit on their laurels. Just like you'll never convince me that money focussed people would never fuck over grandma on her death bed.

All sophisticated societies accept the need for sone regulation just like they accept the need for taxes. We debate the level and nature of required legislation just like we debate the tax burden. But it is a matter of degrees.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wow lots of ideology here.

I live in Canada. We have had endless debates about healthcare. We certainly have our flaws and our benefits. My 2 cents worth is that the funding and coverage should be universal (so nobody is left out) but provision should be open (so the competitive market efficiencies can prevail).

I think the fully socialized version lends itself too much to union intransigence and government incompetence while the fully capitalist version is too ruthless and uncaring. What little I know about the U.S. system suggests that tort law is the key cost factor. Insurance costs run amok because ambulance chasing lawyers have the potential to use jury trials (of 12 of your mist ignorant peers) to extract outsized settlements. But what do I know?

What I do believe is that on most substantive topics there is a middle ground. You must be willingly ignorant to miss the fact that fully socialized systems give "lazy" people too much opportunity to milk the system. And you must be equally ignorant not to recognize the potential abuse and neglect of the vulnerable and less fortunate in an entirely competitive environment. Neither communism or law of the jungle represent a place I want to live.

Much of the challenge lies in these extreme views of right or wrong, good or bad. Ideally we have a competitive environment that encourages efficiency and rewards excellence but maintains enough compassion that we don't cut bed usage by putting our elderly on the ice flows (an absurd claim and metaphor about Cabadisn healthcare from conservative American pundits). You'll never convince me that people with guaranteed jobs and pensions won't ever sit on their laurels. Just like you'll never convince me that money focussed people would never fuck over grandma on her death bed.

All sophisticated societies accept the need for sone regulation just like they accept the need for taxes. We debate the level and nature of required legislation just like we debate the tax burden. But it is a matter of degrees.

What does any of that have to do with the TPP?

 

[Sean]

I dunno why anyone is bothering to argue with retardinflorida, but here's a few facts about US healthcare v the rest of the world.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/nhsrank.png

 

[policywank]

What does any of that have to do with the TPP?

Fair enough. I was picking up on the tangent this conversation has taken into healthcare. I think that started with the premise of how trade agreements can often be used to undermine domestic policies - healthcare being one that is important to all of us and where there are wide divergences across the world.

Very little of this thread has focussed on the original point about fast-track authorization. But one of my main concepts still applies - we are talking about a matter of degrees. Obviously there needs to be checks and balances. But as a practical matter the President has to have fairly robust authority to negotiate international agreements without worrying about domestic politics hijacking him - his role is fundamentally undermined with the counter-parties if he doesn't have the power to back-up his commitments.

If a country, in effect, reserves the right to completely renegotiate the deal after the fact it profoundly affects the whole process because they become an undependable counter-party. And the political situation in the U.S. right now is such that there are politicians who would do the country a disservice just for the opportunity to shoot him down and make him look bad.

 

[JackLuis]

Fair enough. -

Very little of this thread has focussed on the original point about fast-track authorization. But one of my main concepts still applies - we are talking about a matter of degrees. Obviously there needs to be checks and balances. But as a practical matter the President has to have fairly robust authority to negotiate international agreements without worrying about domestic politics hijacking him - his role is fundamentally undermined with the counter-parties if he doesn't have the power to back-up his commitments.

-

In my OP I said, "Show us the Treaty, then we'll decide if you're full of shit or not."

I have learned over a long and difficult political life, to "Trust, but Verify" particularly on complicated small print and foot notes. The broad brush of the media's coverage of TPP is not enough for anyone to determine if it is in the interests of the American people to adopt it as LAW.

I would prefer that Pres. Obama let us see how he is trying to advance his Corporatism, so we can ridicule him in the media. Or show us how this will rebuild the middle class population.

Fast Track= Double shuffle, depend on it.

 

[policywank]

In my OP I said, "Show us the Treaty, then we'll decide if you're full of shit or not."

I have learned over a long and difficult political life, to "Trust, but Verify" particularly on complicated small print and foot notes. The broad brush of the media's coverage of TPP is not enough for anyone to determine if it is in the interests of the American people to adopt it as LAW.

I would prefer that Pres. Obama let us see how he is trying to advance his Corporatism, so we can ridicule him in the media. Or show us how this will rebuild the middle class population.

Fast Track= Double shuffle, depend on it.

I understand. And I am sure you know your political system better than I do.

My point, as somebody that has conducted a lot of negotiations, is that it is much much harder to negotiate without authority. If I know the person that I am dealing with doesn't have the final say I take it as a given that whatever we agree to will get worked over at least one more time by whomever does have the final say. I have to hold something in reserve because the negotiations aren't really over.

As a practical matter in business negotiations even if the person with the final say is behind the scenes you can get some sense of their priorities. And if they are smart they have vested their chief negotiator with enough power to get really close then they come in to clean-up the last bits, shake hands and make sure everyone feels good about it. Likewise they know that if they try to completely change the deal at the last second the other side will walk away with a legitimate claim of bad faith.

However, if I were sitting across the table from Obama it gets more complicated. I don't even know who has the final say but I do know that whatever we agree to will get attacked from many different parties. So I have to make a political assessment of whether he can deliver. This is typical in international trade deals. But I perceive Obama's current position is that of a lame duck President with a hostile opposition. As an outsider I would conclude that the deal will more than likely get substantially worked over. I can't possibly give him my bottomline then have a gaggle of politicians and pundits demand more - I'll be forced to walk away or accept a bad deal. The more uncertainty I perceive the farther I have to stay away from my bottomline. There is therefore a direct line relationship with his level of authority and how good of a deal he can extract from me.

So if you see Canada being intransigent on a key point you don't know if that is a bottom-line position or something we are holding in reserve until after all the screaming dies down. In our case supply management is a big issue and I happen to believe we should change our position. But as a negotiator there is no way I am adopting that position (and accepting all the political flak at home) if I know that the U.S. is just going to turn around and renege on the compromises that were critical to me making the supply management compromise.

When I read your comments my reaction is - I get it and this is a matter for the American people to decide and it is up to you to determine what level of detail that requires. But I also read that you stand poised to attack and ridicule whatever we agree to. It would be irresponsible of me to expose my country to that risk, so I will buffer it by holding back a lot. The deal that you eventually get to see will by definition be less attractive than it would have been without these factors.

Like I said it is not for me to comment on the nature of authority that should be given to Obama, but it is a question of degrees. If his authority and ability to deliver a deal is diminished too much everyone else will just stop negotiating. And I must consider that for some Americans that may be the objective. Fair enough that is your call to make. And not letting my country get screwed in the process is my call to make.

Maybe more vociferous domestic scrutiny will lead to a better deal. Or maybe a President with full authority could extract a better deal by giving the other parties legitimate comfort that he can deliver. We'll never know because those domestic dynamics cannot be separated from what happens at the negotiating table.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I would prefer that Pres. Obama let us see how he is trying to advance his Corporatism . . .

Nitpick: I understand what you're trying to say, but that word does not mean what you think it does. "Corporationism" would be a better word for what you mean.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I understand. And I am sure you know your political system better than I do.

What country are you from?

 

[JackLuis]

Nitpick: I understand what you're trying to say, but that word does not mean what you think it does. "Corporationism" would be a better word for what you mean.

You know your 'isims' better than I. but I figured the point came across.

 

[policywank]

What country are you from?

Canada