TPP signed, so what comes next? Image Credits: By Neil Ballantyne from Wellington, New Zealand (Stop the TPPA.), Wikimedia Commons
TPP signed, so what comes next? It has to be ratified, which means it still can be stopped. The TPP is more than just bad for America: it would bring an end to American Sovereignty. Anyone who supports it is either a useful idiot, aka a fool, or a special interest that would benefit from it. Anyone who votes for it is either compromised in some way or bought and paid for, but, to make a long story short, simply a traitor.
The TPP is the invasion and conquering of America without firing a single shot. So, with the 2016 election fast approaching, who is for it and who is against it? Previous posts on the TPP, TPA, and TTIP can be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If there is anything left of what used to be known as American exceptionalism, surely this would kill it for once and for all.
Trump is against the TPP, but Jeb supports it. Rubio and Cruz voted for the TPA, a fast-track for the TPP to pass on an up or down vote with no discussion on the floor. Seeing which way the wind is blowing, both Rubio and Cruz now say they are now against it, but you can be almost certain that if either were to be elected president, they would pass the TPP. Hillary was for it before she was against it, and Sanders is against it.
Trump on the TPP: In a statement to Breitbart on October 5, 2015, Donald Trump questioned congressional support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He asked, “Why are we striking trade agreements with countries we already have agreements with? Why is there no effort to make sure we have fair trade instead of ‘free’ trade that isn’t free to Americans? Why do we not have accompanying legislation that will punish countries that manipulate their currencies to seek unfair advantage in trade arrangements? Why has the Congress not addressed prohibitive corporate tax rates and trade agreements that continue to drain dollars and jobs from America’s shores?”
Jeb on the TPP: Bush expressed his support for the TPP. He wrote, “I know there is political risk in supporting free trade. TPP is President Obama’s biggest trade initiative. I know some political constituencies in my own political party don’t favor it. But I agree with what Hillary Clinton said about TPP in 2012: This is a great deal for America.
Cruz on the TPP: On May 22, 2015, the Senate passed HR 1314, which was used as a legislative vehicle for trade legislation with the titles “Trade Act of 2015” and the “Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015,” by a vote of 62-37. The bill proposed giving the president trade promotion authority (TPA). The bill also included a statement of trade priorities and provisions for trade adjustment assistance. Cruz voted with 47 other Republican senators to approve the bill
Rubio on the TPP: On May 22, 2015, the Senate passed HR 1314, which was used as a legislative vehicle for trade legislation with the titles “Trade Act of 2015” and the “Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015,” by a vote of 62-37. The bill proposed giving the president trade promotion authority (TPA). The bill also included a statement of trade priorities and provisions for trade adjustment assistance. Rubio voted with 47 other Republican senators to approve the bill.
Sanders on the TPP: In a series of tweets on October 5, 2015, Bernie Sanders criticized the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He tweeted: “We need trade policies that promote the interests of American workers not just the CEOs of corporations #StopTPP. …I am disappointed but not surprised by the decision to move forward on the disastrous TPP that will hurt consumers and cost American jobs. …#TPP follows failed trade deals with Mexico & China that have cost millions of jobs & closed tens of thousands of factories across the US.”
Clinton on the TPP: During the first Democratic debate, on October 13, 2015, Hillary Clinton defended her position to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal after supporting the pact while she was secretary of state. Clinton said, “You know, take the trade deal.
Don’t Give a Damn About the TPP? You’re Going to Wish It Gave a Damn About You.
From Washington’s Blog by David Swanson, American Herald Tribune
Try this at home. Dress up corporate. Stand on a corner with a clipboard. Hover a drone with a video camera nearby. Ask passersby:
1. Who’s in the Super Bowl?
2. Who should be president next year?
3. What was just signed in New Zealand that, if ratified, will let corporations overturn U.S. laws, speed up the destruction of the environment, outsource jobs, encourage slavery, eliminate food safety standards, make medicine cost even more, censor and restrict the internet, impede reform of Wall Street, and make those 20 people who own as much as half the country even richer at your expense?
This is a clear-cut case where Meatloaf is just wrong. Two out of three really is bad.
Former U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and others who had seen all or part of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, used to say that just making it public would stop it dead. But that depends on a number of factors, I think. The TPP has now been made public. Twelve nations have just gone ahead and signed it. And their hope is to see their governments ratify it during the next two years.
The destruction wreaked by NAFTA can be seen in thousands of hollowed out towns across the United States, if you trust the bridges to get you there and are willing to risk drinking the water. But public discussion of NAFTA’s impact is not a popular topic in the corporate media, consolidated post-NAFTA and worsened ever since.
The 1993 corporate media debate over whether or not to create NAFTA looks bizarre to us today. You can go back and watch Vice President Al Gore (pro-NAFTA) debate wealthy crank Ross Perot (anti-NAFTA) on television. That such a thing existed is crazy enough to contemplate in this anti-democratic day and age. But then watch Perot make the debate about the damage NAFTA was going to do to the people of Mexico. You know as well as I do what the universal response to that line of reasoning would be today across the political spectrum of media-approved voices. Say it aloud with me: Who the hell cares what happens to Mexicans!
In fact, the TPP is almost entirely ignored and avoided. When it’s mentioned it’s as something our authoritarian government knows better how to handle than we do. Its defenders, including President Barack Obama, present it as a way to jab a finger in China’s eye. Its opponents argue that it attacks U.S. sovereignty and benefits foreign nations. What, if anything, it does to Vietnamese workers, for example, is just not registering, and the idea of a U.S. billionaire in 2016 bringing that to public attention as a moral concern would get you mocked as a dreamer faster than Hillary Clinton changes positions when a check book is opened.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas and other post-NAFTA corporate deals have been stopped by public pressure, and the TPP can be as well. What is it up against? . . . (more)