The Most Significant Foreign & Domestic Policy Initiative Of The Obama Administration ANOTHER NAFTA

What Could Potentially Be The Most Significant Foreign And Domestic Policy Initiative Of The Obama Administration: The Trans-Pacific Partnership

THIS IS WHAT OBAMA IS IN ASIA WORKING ON RIGHT NOW!
Another agreement to help drag us down to the level of a 3rd world country---

(Here are snippets from the article at this link:
[link to patriotaction.net]

Why has the news industry on both the left and right ignored TPP? Trans-Pacific Partnership?

It is hard to know what is exactly in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). You certainly have not heard about it on any of the major news networks. Not CNN, not Fox News, and not MSNBC, let alone the local affiliates.

(snip)

There are two major concerns about agreements like this. One is that these agreements continue a transition from a democratic system toward one in which the rights of foreign corporations can trump laws passed by legislative bodies.

The second concern is that the TPP could become a conduit for the U.S. to become more dependent on China. American tensions with China cause genuine friction. This is not far-fetched, as America is positioning military assets in the region.

(snip)

Americans are faced with the leadership of both political parties who are largely supportive of more NAFTA-style trade agreements. Yet, this isn’t new since NAFTA was passed with Republican support under a Democratic president. It does add evidence to the idea that the 2012 election is a carefully cultivated political debate in which core economic issues have been carved out.

(snip)

The most controversial part of NAFTA is the investment provision. It not only removes the risks usually associated with offshoring production to low-wage countries. It also allows foreign corporations investing in the U.S. extra-legal rights to dispute American environmental, labor or consumer protections in foreign tribunals favorable to corporate interests, to demand taxpayer compensation for having to meet the same norms as domestic firms. NAFTA is just one agreement; U.S. trade agreements, including the World Trade Organization, also allow imposition of indefinite trade sanctions if the U.S. does not change its domestic laws to meet the pact’s limits on financial, environmental and other public interest regulation.

(snip)

....states and municipalities must bear the cost of helping to defend their regulations in international tribunals (such as California spending $8 million to successfully defend its right to ban the harmful gasoline additive MTBE or regulate mining on state lands).







[link to patriotaction.net]

Last Edited by Ralph--a house dog on 11/24/2012 08:04 PM