Obama Complains That TPP Critics Are 'Conspiracy Theorists' Who 'Lack Knowledge' About Negotiations
from the well,-that-would-appear-to-be-your-own-fault dept
It's become fairly clear that the TPP agreement is in trouble these days (for a variety of reasons). And it appears that President Obama is losing his cool concerning the agreement and its critics. In a press conference with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, President Obama lashed out at TPP critics, calling them "conspiracy theorists" whose criticism "reflects lack of knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations." Oh really?If you take an issue like drugs, for example, the United States does extraordinary work in research and development, and providing medical breakthroughs that save a lot of lives around the world. Those companies that make those investments in that research oftentimes want a return, and so there are all kinds of issues around intellectual property and patents, and so forth.Um. You know why those complaining may "lack knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations"? Perhaps it's because the USTR -- a part of the Obama White House -- has insisted that the entire negotiations take place in complete secrecy with no transparency at all. If President Obama doesn't want conspiracy theories about the agreement, and wishes that its critics were more informed about the negotiations, he can change that today by instructing the USTR to release its negotiating positions and promise to make all future negotiating positions public.
At the same time, I think we would all agree that if there’s a medicine that can save a lot of lives, then we’ve got to find a way to make sure that it’s available to folks who simply can’t afford it as part of our common humanity. And both those values are reflected in the conversations and negotiations that are taking place around TPP. So the assumption somehow that right off the bat that’s not something we’re paying attention to, that reflects lack of knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations.
But my point is you shouldn’t be surprised if there are going to be objections, protests, rumors, conspiracy theories, political aggravation around a trade deal. You’ve been around long enough, Chuck — that’s true in Malaysia; it’s true in Tokyo; it’s true in Seoul; it’s true in the United States of America — and it’s true in the Democratic Party.
But he won't do that. Why? Because the USTR has admitted that if the public knew what was going on with the TPP, it wouldn't support the agreement. And so the negotiations continue in secret. And the President Obama gets frustrated about a lack of knowledge and conspiracy theories? Really?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: barack obama, conspiracy, criticism, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Such a lost opportunity...
Yeah, the vast majority of people don't know what's going on in the negotiations, or what's in the 'trade' agreement, and that's precisely because the public, and even most of the government, have been intentionally kept ignorant of those very things.
A statement like his, that's little more than pure whining about the 'mean ol' public', deserves nothing but derision, if he's really got a problem with people assuming the worst about TTP and other 'trade' agreements, then he's only got himself and the USTR to blame for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I do not think it means what you think it means
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Such a lost opportunity...
Also, because of their relationship with the government, they are not allowed to know that there is no actual access to the documents, cause the USTR says he is transparent as all get out. That is, whether they know it or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SOOO?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Insolence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The conspiracy theorists are winning
I wonder if they took that into account before making such an offhand remark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I do not think it means what you think it means
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I do not think it means what you think it means
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just ask the CEO of Beyer. I'm sure he has some great ideas on that front.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1) Start a conspiracy
2) Keep conspiracy secret
3) Mock those who theorize about your secret conspiracy by calling them conspiracy theorists who don't know anything.
4) PROFIT
IT'S BEAUTIFUL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They also clamor on about globalists (aka The New World Order or the Illuminati) trying to establish a one world government to strip people to the lowest common freedom, if even that. The TPP leaks have unearthed that agenda (as before with ACTA and most likely with TAFTA/TTIP and other trade agreements), not to mention the overall diminish of press freedom worldwide.
Way to prove the conspiracy theorists and other detractors right, Obama.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I do not think it means what you think it means
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The conspiracy theorists are winning
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Insolence
You are foolish and naive to believe that Obama and the USTR have our best interests in mind. The only ones they have in mind are the concerns of their political contributors. Guess who that isn't? The rest of us who aren't the industries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Just because one claim from a person is later found to be valid does not make all their claims valid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
No, but if one claim is proven right that gives credibility to the others. If two are proven right, people start thinking that there might be something to this.
It's a sad, sad day when the conspiracy theorists are more trusted then the US government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Conspiracy Theorists, Tinfoil hats, etc...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Insolence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How odd to use that line as part of your complaint when things aren't going your way. Face it, the Obama administration is in trouble with the media. The media can't access the pres to take photos of public events. The media can't complain about how the administration does things without getting phone calls that cuss the reporters out over things that the administration disagrees with.
When you lock up all the info that supports what you say and it is followed by what is a scandal to the American people of spying on them and disregarding their constitutional rights, then lie to them and tell them everything is fine. They being to distrust and not believe without being shown the facts (none of which I see here in this article). Remember that other little fib? You know the one about keeping your doctor and keeping your insurance? Or the one about Holder not answering his demand for additional documentation? Or the one about the DOJ (under the executive's branch of control) not going after James Clapper for perjury under oath?
Surely at some point even the dense people get a clue as to why no one trusts them any more and why they are uninformed.
Obama, it's your bed you made, it's your place to lay in it now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
this mahine didn't kill Faciests
can I get a new speak bible?
oligarchy is wrong the state IS choosing it is fascism.
when you cannot tell the state from the private enterprise, your there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Think along the terms of... "Emperors New Clothes"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
In my opinion it does not really matter because his Mom was a Citizen when she gave birth and no matter where she gave birth it makes her child a Citizen.
I simply would never have voted for the turd for his political agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are presuming that you knew what his political agenda really was. He has lied about much of what he did say, but we did not know that until after the fact. Second time around, after knowing he lied...well sheeple I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Conspiracy Theorists, Tinfoil hats, etc...
Well documented history is a very interesting thing, no wonder some people want to alter it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: this mahine didn't kill Faciests
Spell Checker - how does it work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, truth or not it is the perception that is believed. Politics 101, tap dancing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TPP started it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well . . . .
Can't wait to see the chapter on human rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: this mahine didn't kill Faciests
this machine kills words...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course it's everyone else's fault and other Governments that are giving these negotiations the side eye because the U.S. is trying to force it down their throats.
Obama can try and do damage control all he want's the fact is that the details of the negotiations are leaking is because negotiators for other governments and non-stakeholders see just what a raw deal it is for their countries and their citizens.
Obama has been silent on this up till now, but when the U.S. TPP negotiators started to lose their edge in forcing this on other Govenments they have run crying to the White House to help stem off the flow of resentment building from other Governments and their citizens that are outraged at the swindle that is taking place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More reading
Also see Matt Stoller's tumblr where he posts quite credible evidence that the things that Birchers said happened but bourgeois liberals say were only deranged "conspiracy theories"... in fact did happen, aside from minor details and alleged ulterior motives.
Finally, see this book by a former Obama staffer promoting hagiography as the only valid, correct history.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Presidential parataxis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Insolence
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But there was the serious danger that Romney was not even lying about his.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Conspiracy Theorists, Tinfoil hats, etc...
Oh ye of little faith: time to reread the book of Job. Do you now get what they mean when they are talking of their intention of "creating Jobs"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SECRET TPPartnership, C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING...
SECRET TPPartnership, C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada tells China to "Hit the Road" if Chinese style anti-corruption Blows "Arrangements" between Can. Lobbyists' Clients & Parties' Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY the arranged PENALTIES.
(CAN) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Canada - China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada - European Union CETA may be unraveling by way of the Canadian Senate, which is being threatened with being abolished, et al.
There are several reasons for the secrecy ("omerta") of the dispute resolution tribunals. They are:
1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada's lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons:
A) to promote corporate Canada's agenda with governing party(ies) by:
i) reducing its taxes & thus, the "net increase" in taxes for non shareholders
&
ii) increase its funding for "economic development" which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed "economic development" funds, ie. those 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discressionary spending & its abuse
and
B) to protect corporate Canada's agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations in order to limit the scope of the "opposition" to manageable issues that can be compromised in order that "opposing" parties can claim victories (at least a limited victory) for their constituents. Under this arrangement both, the politicians & the lobbyists' clients are protected from scrutiny by the role of the parties' executives.
2) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsor from having to reveal to the each others' corporate sponsors their existing arrangements that it has with its own government & thus, each counties' corporate sponsors are not obliged to share the benefits & considerations (& future considerations) that they receive from their respective governments ie. their non shareholding taxpayers. Often the benefits are shared as an inducement to conduct business together in the more convenient jurisdictions.
3) To Protect the parties to one treaty, &/or, agreement (referred to as the "original" treaty/agreement) from having to reveal to third parties the nature, &/or, details of their "original" arrangements to other third parties who may want to enter into a treaty, &/or, agreement with either of the parties to the "original" agreement/treaty.That is to say, that acquiring & having privileged information of an outsiders treaties, &/or, agreements will cause contention as the third party will undoubtedly insist upon more favorable terms & conditions to a new treaty/agreement than the original treaty/agreement. For example; "You did this with them, so I insist upon more, or, I'll deal with them, or, others". The European Union is particularly interested in preventing the Canada - European Union CETA from becoming divisive whereby individual EU member countries may be enticed, &/or, coerced into making preferential, but, "very secretive" side deals with corporate Canada, et al.
By preventing the non shareholding taxpayers from learning about the aforementioned reasons for the tribunals' secrecy whereby the non shareholding taxpayers pay for the increase in the value of the shareholders' stocks & dividends is insider trading & stock manipulation.
Therefore, corporate Canada, AFN & their traditional media outlets have more than just a vested interest in the continuation of the most vulnerable Canadians (95% - 99% of Native & non Native Canadians) deprivation of the information such as the comprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord and the comprehensive versions of the Canada - China Investment Treaty, the Canada - European Union CET Agreement, et al, that include the mechanisms, procedures, practices used in the adjudications of the dispute resolution tribunal & its disbursement of its punitive awards.
And, while it may be regrettable that not all of the 95% - 99% most vulnerable, non shareholders are able, &/or, willing to move to a sovereign Quebec, or, other jurisdictions, in order to:
1) avoid the "unethical" & "inhumane" (see; The W.A.D. Accord), but, "legal" practices
and
2) start getting the relevant & quantitative information regarding the above, et al.
The issue of the secret tribunals raises some interesting questions that the "secret congress" of the lobbyists' clients & the executives of the political parties have no intention of answering. For instance; what do the above arrangements say about the 95% - 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers & the version of "democracy" that they are developing in Canada in the context of the growing "global" economy
and
what do the above arrangements say about the accelerating growth of the disparity of the wealth between the shareholders (1% - 5% of Canadians, et al) & the non shareholders (95% - 99% of Canadians), et al?
What are you, the reader, learning about the Canada - China Investment Treaty that will help you to ascertain whether the Canada - European Union Agreement is better for you & perhaps, corporate Canada?
What are some of the other questions that the non shareholders need to ask
&
who can answer, &/or, is willing to answer (as opposed to "respond' to) their questions that would make them willing participants & direct beneficiaries of the C-CIT & the CETA?
Have you & your family, friends & colleagues sent PM Harper & Mr. DAN HILTON (Executive Director of the Conservative Party) your:
"NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINA
INVESTMENT TREATY"
and
"NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA - EUROPEAN UNION
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC & TRADE AGREEMENT"
in order to enhance your opportunity to exculpate yourself from having to pay for:
1) the aforementioned Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord
&
2) the costs, penalties, punitive damages that will be derived from the C-CITreaty
& the CETAgreement?
In conclusion, it may be regrettable that the C-CITreaty & the CETAgreement has, so far, been successful at giving corporate Canada & its representatives the much higher degree of legitimacy to their aforementioned secrecy (assisted by way of the international cache) that it needs in order for them to later, & once again, claim (see; NAFTA) that they are doing/did "their best" to protect the non shareholders from the over zealousness of their foreign Treaty, &/or, Agreement counterparts.
Is it not easier & just prudent to discuss the preexisting arrangements & challenges to the Treaty & the Agreement prior to ratifying them in order to determine which is more egregious than the other (or, are both equally egregious) & thus, avoid any of the secret "dispute" resolutions & its "hefty" costs to the beleaguered non shareholding taxpayers, et al? And, how much more will these costs further erode the non shareholding taxpayers health care (privatize), educational services, etc.?
How much has corporate Canada set aside to defend the CHALLENGES, et al, that corporate Canada & the non shareholders are anticipating? How far along are they in collecting this fund & how much more does corporate Canada & its shareholders need to set aside before the non shareholding taxpayers allow corporate Canada & its representatives to proceed?
Similarly, due to a psychiatrist's previous linking of the deprivation of information with the unconscionably high rates of despair, disenchantment, suicides, unemployment, poverty, etc., that are found in many communities across Canada,
what are the various different ways that non shareholders can guarantee that corporate Canada & its shareholders have enough financial reserves set aside in order to pay for the CHALLENGES by the non shareholders and those who will be the new victims of the aforementioned deprivation of information?
On the other hand, are there actually any non shareholding taxpayers who think that corporate
Canada is actually anxious to explain to them, or, corporate China, or, corporate EU, just how effective their secretive relationship between:
1) lobbyists' of corporate Canada
&
2) the executives of the parties that are operating in Canada
has been & is continuing to be?
And, finally, without:
1) a meaningful forum in which to "further question" the Treaty & Agreement without the fear of recriminations, etc.,
2) a predetermined list of circumstances whereby corporate Canada can terminate the Treaty & the Agreement without penalties, &/or, costs to the harmless non shareholding taxpayers
&
3) et al,
the ratification of the C-CITreaty & the CETAgreement will eliminate for most Canadians the last remnants of "democratically" effecting the treaty/agreement by the non shareholding taxpayers
& thus,
corporate Canada, et al, will finally be able to give these arrangements the luster of legitimacy that they need that is based upon the logic that "It can't be another gilded cage that will cause another economic melt down like the "derivative type conspiracy"** that is continuing to debilitate international finance, etc., because there are just too many vanguards of industry promoting the public financing of the C-CITreaty & CETAgreement".
The secrecy of the C-CITreaty & CETAgreement arrangements are not dissimilar to insider trading, whereby the shareholders who are on "the inside" use secret, &/or, privileged information to make money for themselves at the expense of the group that is on the "outside", the non shareholding taxpayers, who are being deprived of the aforementioned information & thus, are being deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the direct benefits of the treaty/agreement. And, just as some of the means
to counter these arrangements are also not dissimilar to those counter
measures that can remedy insider trading & pay punitive damages, etc. to the harmless non shareholders. And, while it is likely that the "coveted" Chinese investor*** may have enough of the insider information regarding the more "unethical", &/or, "inhumane" arrangements in the C-CITreaty to navigate the mechanisms of the secret dispute resolution tribunal in his favor & at the peril of corporate Canada, it may be regrettable that it is highly unlikely that the European Union has been as fortunate regarding the CETA arrangements. This disparity between China's benefits from the C-CITreaty & the benefits that the EU may derive from their CETA will continue to be dangerously contentious.
And, finally, it may also be regrettable that there is yet another vulnerability that corporate Canada, especially its Alberta chapter, is particularly desperate to be kept secret for as long as possible and it only remains to be seen when it will be most advantageous to "leak" the secret & by which party.
* The W.A.D. Accord; Reference:
For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled:
"Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al", Researched & Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.'s NGP Joint Review Panel..
Contact:
Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project
(22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3)
regarding:
http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc/cl ... r-eng.html
Public Registry; File #A43076
All letters of comment are under "F". This comment is available
under the subfolder "S".
Further questions?;
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
For the other information that may lead the non shareholders, corporate China and corporate European Union & their shareholders & the non shareholders, et al, to a greater certainty regarding
what corporate Canada may be sharing with you regarding the accessing of the aforementioned, information & Canadian natural resources, et al, I can be contacted at:
David E.H. Smith, 2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, British Columbia, CANADA. V8L 2C8.,
Non shareholders & the other potential participants in the C-CITreaty CETAgreement can access more of the relevant articles that have been researched & posted on Facebook (& several online newspapers, et al) at:
Facebook; "David Smith", Sidney, British Columbia.
https://www.facebook.com/resea...
GOOGLE; "David E.H. Smith"; &/o, RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS, below.
** "derivative type conspiracy"; "The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room" by Jesse Eisinger. Upstart Business Journal, October 15, 2008, 8:00am EDT. Re; the "industrialized credit derivatives"
http://upstart.bizjournals.com...
*** the "coveted" Chinese investor; Who is the "coveted" Chinese investor who said:
"It's not that we are racist when we are dealing with Canadians,
it's just that we can't stand the way that you suck up to us."?
**********
GOOGLE; RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,
Reader Supported News (RSN)
1) CETA; IS corporate CANADA JUST continuing its "SUCKING UP" (C-CIT) & shi..."PURGING DOWN?,
2) FINANCIAL & HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS: EU - CAN. Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (CETA): 'EU may consider "Renditioning Info" as Condition of CETA Deal to Minimize "Unethical & Inhumane" Arrangements between Canadian lobbyists' clients/parties' executives; CHINA may follow in C-CITreaty'?,
3) WHY the AFN may be "DRAGGING its HEELS" on CRITICALLY N.B. ISSUES & Causing the Formation of a New First Nations Group?,
4) "NATIVE SUICIDES LINKED TO INFO. DEPRIVATION" HELP IS ON THE WAY?,
5) C-CI Treaty; "It's Now SAFE..." CETA... Euros cautioned about corporate Canada,
6) (RSN) "CHINA'S KIND HELP from its MINISTRY of STATE SECURITY (MSS) maybe ACCEPTED by CSIS..."?,
7)> “... WE ARE RACIST when it comes to dealing with CANADIANS...”? FINANCIAL & HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS; DEHS, Re; "A Response..." is not an answer to the questions raised in "C-CI Treaty; SPY/AGENT PROVOCATEUR...or, The RELUCTANT (Ethical & Humane) PATRIOT?,
8) Improving, or, Eliminating the China-Canada Investment Treaty via The WAD Accord,
9) FINANCIAL NEWS: Canada-European Union - Trade and Investment Enhancement Agreement (TIEA) The taxpayers/voters of Europe are cautioned... arrangements with corporate Canada,
10) ENBRIDGE; JRP: "TOWARDS a more INFORMED OPINION...",
11)(RSN) CSIS; PRIVY COUNCIL; "The THREAT ASSESSMENT"; CSIS; re; NAFT Agreement, C-CI Treaty, CET Agreement, TP Partnership, et al. (Edited; Jan., 2014),
12) > Have you HELPED YOUR FAMILY & Friends by sending your NOTIFICATION of a PREEXISTING CHALLENGE?,
13) (RSN) SPY/AGENT PROVOCATEUR for corp. China-Canada, & their Investors, or, The RELUCTANT (Ethical & Humane) PATRIOT for the Most Vulnerable (99%) of Canadians-Chinese, et al?; The Mechanism for Ascertaining & Vote to stop, &/or, Improve the Canada-China FIPPA,
14) "A Response..." is not an answer to the questions raised in "C-CI Treaty...",
15) Improving, or, Eliminating the China-Canada Investment Treaty via The WAD Accord ("China treaty uproar signals growing rift between Ottawa, grassroots conservatives"),
16) Eliminating, &/or, Improving the C-CI Treaty (FIPPA) by Using The WAD Accord & Ms. Elizabeth May's (MP) letter,
17) (RSN) TIRED of Political BELIEFS; why not ask QUESTIONS that can form the basis for more INFORMED OPINIONS? See; Response to Ms. Elizabeth May - MP, Nov. 2, 2012 letter.A DIAGNOSTIC TEST of Canada's Version of "DEMOCRACY"; SIMPLE, "DEMOCRATIC" QUESTIONS for "our"(?) Members of Parliament, et al.,
18) (RSN) SECRET C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING,
19) >"WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN". - George H.W. Bush. Re; American police to operate on Canadian soil; arrangements between corporate America & corporate Canada; CETA & C-CIT.,
20) >The RED HERRING; The SENATE "SCANDAL",
21) USING The WAD ACCORD to IMPROVE, &/or, ELIMINATE the C-CI Treaty (FIPPA); Response to Ms. Elizabeth May - MP, Nov. 2, 2012 letter.,
22) "Indigenous Economies" & "MUNICIPAL EMANCIPATION",
23) (RSN) Non SHAREHOLDERS, Native & Non Native, are WHINING CAMP FOLLOWERS?,
24) "CONSIDERATIONS' paid to ALL PARTIES to PROMOTE C-CITreaty & CETA, et al and to LIMIT "OPPOSITION" (see; The WAD Accord)?,
25) (RSN) INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE, or, INTELLIGENT SHARING; The Edge, or, Illusion for Who?,
26) (RSN) DEATH of FIRST NATIONS; NOW "SUE-ABLE" NATIVE "FIRST MUNICIPALITIES"; "EMANCIPATION" & "Indigenous Economies")?,
27) (RSN) The Termination Plan for Native Canadians, ET AL; The COUNTER OFFER REFERENDUMS; The WAD Accord, The Notification of C-CI Treaty (CETA & TPP), The Termination Plan, The T.P. Counter Offer, et al,
28) GLOBAL LOBBYISTS' MANAGERS ACKNOWLEDGE & understand REFERENDUMS on;"The WAD ACCORD's COMPENSATION", "NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGES to C-CI Treaty" (& CET Agreement, TP Partnership, et al,) "The COUNTER OFFER to The Termination Plan for Native Canadians, ET AL", et al?,
29) CHAIRMAN MAO'S LAST LAUGH? / The GREEN PARTY of CANADA, et al, LEAKs...,
30) (RSN) An OPEN LETTER to Canadian NON SHAREHOLDERS (both; Native & non Native), et al.145 years of corporate Canada using non shareholders' tax dollars to be used to REWARD SHAREHOLDERS with punitive penalties paid by NON SHAREHOLDERS via NAFTA, C-CIT, CETA, TPP, et al, SECRET TRIBUNALS,
31) (RSN) TOWARDS A MORE INFORMED OPINION; The SHAREHOLDERS of the Global Corporate Economy VS. the NON SHAREHOLDERS; The Acceleration of The FINAL DISPARITY between the Rich & the Poor; Enbridge's Northern Gateway (Pipeline) Project
see also;
1) (RSN) PRIME MINISTER HARPER, et al, YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with; "NOTIFICATIONS of Preexisting CHALLENGES...C-CITreaty" & CETA..., TPP, et al,
2) PRESIDENT XI JINPING (CHINA); YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with "The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE...C-CITreaty",
3) PRESIDENTS; H.V. ROMPUY (EU Council), J. BARROSO (EU Commission) & M. SCHULZ (EU Parliament); YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with "The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE...CETAgreement",
4) PRESIDENTS/PRIME MINISTERS Trans Pacific nations; YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with "The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE... TPPartnership"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing would make me happier, than if, failure to keep a campaign promise was to become a criminal offence.
if we lie to the police - criminal offence
if we lie to congress - Felony offence
if a politician lies to the public - receive campaign donations from their corporate overlords
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that doesn't also make an absolute mockery of Obama's commitment to transparency - Obama'as administration does that easily enough.
So, I have a message for Obama - how about a nice cup of shut the fuck up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I do not think it means what you think it means
AC is obviously some religious fundamentalist running around with their fingers in their ears yelling "LA LA LA LA LALALALALALA!!!!111"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The drugs used for the lethal injection in the US are too expensive from US pharmaceutical companies so they were buying them from an EU pharmaceutical company.
When the EU pharmaceutical company found out (or it was exposed) what the drugs were being used for they cut off the supply.
My only question is how can producing the same drug within the EU be more expensive in the US?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
as long as we ignore the bloated prices and the weekly botched executions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In EU the markets are build around selling more directly to some kind of nationwide monopoly healthcare provide and the sales rep and advertisement part of the chain can be skipped or cut down to a minimum for many products, thus reducing the overall costs. Also, the lack of price competition on sale to a monopoly is countered by different types of legislation in different countries.
When dealing with lethal injections it is not valuable for the government to use the reps-system, the insurance system doesn't cover a government using lethal injections nor do the product names matter terribly much for the government. Thus european pharmaceuticals has a far better fit to the needs of the state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One party wants to gut the minimum wage, the other party wants to increase it.
One party wants to gut the 13th and 14th amendments, the other party wants to adhere to what was previously agreed to.
One party wants to gut the public school system, the other party does not.
One party wants to further enrich the elite ruling class, the other party ... well, not as much.
.... many many more - if you are paying attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why is there so much outrage over the ACA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SECRET TPPartnership, C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING...
links, how do they work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty
OBUMMER is one of the worst things to ever happen to this country. I sorry to day I voted for OBUMMER in the last election - thank god he will not be in another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...neither of which will do minimum wage earners any good. Lowering their wages, well, that's obvious why it's harmful. But increasing them? That's a bit more subtle.
First, ask the question, who earns minimum wage? When you start answering, most of the types of jobs you'll see in the answer are pretty similar: people who provide basic services, including things as fundamental as food.
Now ask yourself, under a modern, corporatist system, where the highest duty is to increase profits and improve shareholder value, what will happen if the cost of wages, which (even at such low wages) is a significant fraction of the operating cost of a business, goes up? Two very predictable things will happen: workers will be laid off, and the price of goods will go up, to compensate for the increased costs. Including the price of things as fundamental as food. And of course, with an excuse like this, the savings will will probably be more than enough to compensate for increased costs, because that's always how it works. (cf. the price of gasoline.)
Now if a worker's wages go up by 20%, and the cost of the fundamental things he needs to buy to support day-to-day life (which make up a significant percentage of his expenses because he's a low-wage worker without much discretionary income left over after taking care of the fundamentals) increases by more than 20%, how much better off is he? (Assuming he's not one of the ones who got laid off. How much better off are they?)
Meanwhile, if you're making 40% more than the minimum wage, and the minimum wage increases by 20%, and prices on fundamental things you need to support life go up by 20%, you didn't get a raise, but you're now worse off. The only people who come out of it better off are the corporatists.
Raising the minimum wage sounds like a good idea to people who can only think in one degree of cause and effect, but when you look at the later effects it turns out to be a horrible idea. What would actually work is finding a way to drive down the cost of living. Unfortunately, that doesn't make as good a soundbite as "raise the minimum wage!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- takers vs makers
- Paul Ryan "budget"
- start wars everywhere
- balance the "budget" on the backs of the poor, while ignoring the off balance sheet war funding
Not sure why I would vote for such things knowing they are not in my best interests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yes but..
but not seeing him say they are wrong.. don;t just read what is said, read what is very very carefully not said
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Such a lost opportunity...
It's no wonder that in order to get anything done, you must disenfranchise and large part of the 'input' to only those who actually are informed and knowledgeable.
In fact, this country was founded on the principle that you can always count on the fact that the 'wisdom of the masses' is that of reactionary dumb ass and must be avoided at all costs for everyone's best interests. That's why we have a Republic, and not a direct democracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As opposed to well this, or other past examples.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SECRET TPPartnership, C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmmmm...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Such a lost opportunity...
I doubt this, got any data to support the claim?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Corporate subsidy occurs at several levels; direct subsidy, tax beaks, poverty wages. If your employees need government support in order to survive then you are not paying them a living wage and are stealing from the tax payers in order to enrich yourself.
2) The normalized net income level of the middle class been declining for some time.
3) There is much talk about the level of employment, but little detail about types and income levels of jobs lost vs jobs added. Most of the lost jobs were middle class income level and most of the added jobs are minimum wage.
4) The number one driver of the US economy is consumerism. Of all consumers, the majority falls into the middle class. What happens when the middle class net disposable income is reduced? Just look at the economy to find out.
5) Increasing the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do from a moral perspective, but it also is the right thing to do for the economy. But the I've got mine people seemingly can not see past their long noses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty
And the alternative would have been so much better?
Or maybe you meant that you should have not voted ... nice.
btw, if you were to look, many presidents in the past have been proclaimed to be the worst - I doubt Obama would displace any of them from their well deserved podium seats.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Such a lost opportunity...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Such a lost opportunity...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mason Wheeler
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Mason Wheeler
You state this as though it were fact, I doubt there are any facts to back it up. Or maybe you meant that it only works if you are not affected.
" college tuition subsidies which only end up raising the overall price of college tuition"
Again, supposition. I have seen this statement thrown about elsewhere but it is never accompanied by evidence. Higher education funding at the state and federal levels has been declining for some time but I suppose this has nothing to do with the overall cost of tuition - right?
Driving down the cost of living? Deflation is nothing to play with, in certain circumstances gasoline will put out a fire but what a way to go when it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree, it is a boondoggle for the insurance corporations. People need health care, not insurance.
That "pass it to find out what's in it" quote is indicative of the fact that our "law makers" are not the ones writing the laws and few representatives actually read what they are voting upon.
Point being, something in the right direction was attempted although the final result was suboptimal. Also, the reasons for these shortcomings lie at the feet of congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The conspiracy theorists are winning
They? "They" did not remark. *He* did. Depersonalizing failures of The Exalted One again are we?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aaaand... HACK.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mason Wheeler
You were saying something about claims not accompanied by evidence?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It's a difficult concept not to dismiss for its irrationality. The idea is no more grounded in reason than the term used to refer to it. "Living" wage, as if anything less is a death sentence. Never mind the obvious question begged: how have so many people continued to breath on "non-living" wages for so long? Yes, yes, I know you *mean* live *well*, but that embraces subjectivity like little else in economics, doesn't it? People always want more. You cannot base an economy on paying people what they want. You can only base it on paying them what their labor is *worth*, which is determinable by no person, for no one is omniscient, only by the behaviors of everyone in the market (read: supply–demand equilibrium). No rational actor will pay someone more than their labor is worth, so trying to move the equilibrium wage for various jobs higher by fiat is a fool's errand—you will only get the people you wanted to help laid off.
"If your employees need government support in order to survive then you are not paying them a living wage and are stealing from the tax payers in order to enrich yourself."
The problem with this line of reasoning should be apparent. Employers do not ask the tax payers to supplement their employees' incomes. The tax payers, whipped into emotive fervors by self-serving politicians, do that on their own. By your reasoning, the tax payers could decide to supplement the incomes of every worker in the country, then turn around and accuse every single employer of "stealing" from them. You'll probably write that counter-argument off as "absurd", but it demonstrates the flaw in your logic. The fact that an employee gets public benefits cannot itself mean their employer is "stealing" from anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Because some of us foresee the entirely predictable consequence of even *further* removing price signals from medical decision making. The degenerate variant of so-called "insurance" in medical care has been much of the pricing problem, and ACA has only mandated that we continue to pay for medical care using the current uneconomical scheme.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: this mahine didn't kill Faciests
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The reason the administration is keeping the treaty negotiations secret is so that it can be announced, introduced in the Senate, and passed before any popular opposition can organize. Enough of the Dems in the Senate will vote for it (planning to apologize later with "I didn't know" or "it was forced on me"), with our Dem president's support, the whole scheme will work, and his supposedly angry supporters will reward the party with yet another election's worth of support! (Yes, you DO have a choice: vote for libertarian candidates of any party.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Mason Wheeler
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Living in denial is bliss, but what to do with those random moments of clarity ... every now and then the real world comes knocking at your door, so to speak, it must be truly shocking.
So basically your point is, screw those guys - I've got mine!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mason Wheeler
http://www.acenet.edu/the-presidency/columns-and-features/Pages/state-funding-a-race-to-the-bott om.aspx
http://www.nea.org/home/33074.htm
http://www.demos.org/publication/great-cost-shift-continues- state-higher-education-funding-after-recession
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Such a lost opportunity...
I do my best to inform the people by telling them what's going on. I don't get much thanks for it but I do it all the same. What are you doing, apart from considering yourself to be better and smarter than your fellow citizens?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given the complexities that would arise if the minimum wage went up, what about going with Warren Buffett's suggestion of restricting the pay of CEOs and senior officers to 11 times that of the lowest paid worker. If the CEO gets a raise, so do the workers. Ring fence retirement/pension schemes so they're handled by a third party and none of the company officers can touch them. That way, they can't rob the workers (and it's legal, folks!) of their pension funds.
Finally, profit-sharing schemes for companies whose bosses don't earn more that 11 times their workers' salaries should help the rest, leaving only unprofitable businesses without the obligation of laying off staff to pay their other workers more.
While the idea of subsidizing unprofitable businesses by paying welfare to workers who can't afford to live on their wages may rankle with some of us, it's actually cheaper than paying more welfare to an unemployed worker, and at least some taxes are being paid.
N.B. reducing or removing the tax burden wouldn't give individuals much more money than they had before. All it would do is remove any services those taxes paid for, raising their living costs even further.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mason Wheeler
In a buyer's market the opportunity to seek work elsewhere is limited and in fire-at-will states even looking for another job could get you fired if your boss finds out. In theory, you could be stuck where you are unless your prospective new employers are willing to wait until after you've started working for them to get a reference. It costs to train replacement employees, after all. So don't kid yourselves, there's no free market in employment.
Let the workers in high-profit industries be paid a share of the wealth they create, and let the CEOs receive no more than 11 times what the lowest worker gets. If he gets a pay raise, so does everyone else. That's fair and gets people off welfare.
And before anyone accuses me of socialism, riddle me this:
if the rich are wealth creators, why would they suffer if their workers went on strike?
If their money (and jobs) are to be treated as property and therefore sacrosanct, why not worker's labor and wages?
In what way would this solution make ANYONE poor?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm right with you. Running it for profit leads to abuses all over the place. As a non-profit scheme run for the benefit of the public with private enterprise running alongside, competing on service, everyone would benefit.
I'm not against for-profit medicine and medical services per se, but I have found that, when competing on service with a free scheme, it works better for all of us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And no, I'm not going to accept poverty with dignity. And neither should anyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
how tpp would ruin the us economy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To serve and protect
It would be nice to believe that our political representatives on down to the cop on the beat truly do have adhere to their creed "To serve and protect," rather than a focus inclined to line their own pockets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TTP Obama
This is the guy who starts any negotiation with "I'm a nice guy, I will compromise" and then walks away with 10% of what he started at. You'd never want this guy negotiating for a car for you, you'd end up paying over sticker price for it.
His blatant distortion of the positions of those who are opposed to TTP is disgusting and dishonest.
I know of no one of any standing who is opposed to international trade. What people are opposed to is slave labor, child labor and US government subsidies to corporations who move jobs overseas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]