President Obama Gives Up On The Trans-Pacific Partnership (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes The Guardian: White House officials conceded on Friday that the president's hard-fought-for Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal would not pass Congress, as lawmakers there prepared for the anti-global trade policies of President-elect Donald Trump. Earlier this week, congressional leaders in both parties said they would not bring the trade deal forward during a lame-duck session of Congress, before the formal transition of power on January 20.
One Canadian law professor had argued the case against the TPP included its unbalanced intellectual property rules and risks to privacy, while the EFF believed it locked in the worst parts of U.S. copyright law and also exported them to other countries.

Comments

MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[QuietLagoon]

From what I've read, the law was written by the MPAA/RIAA cartel, along with considerable input from Big Pharma. The law was designed more for the protection of those conglomerates, and less for any benefit of consumers. There's a reason why the creation of the law was so secretive.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Anonymous Coward]

The most contentious passages also had to do with corporate super-sovereignty. It made corporations more powerful than sovereign nations and gave them the right to sue governments when national laws impacted business.

Good riddance.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[ranton]

That was a fun read. Can you do it again but this time make it look like Truman was at fault for everything Stalin did? I like alternate realities.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[justthinkit]

So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?

If we're not careful, we may have to give republicans the nod on this one.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Altrag]

It was written by a lot of big corporations -- those are just the ones we tend to hear about the most because that's what the Slashdot crowd tend to focus on.

There's a lot of bad things in there for farmers and manufacturers as well, not to mention that whole investor-state bullshit that effectively lets companies override a country's sovereignty in order to protect their bottom line, weakening of environmental protections around the world and so on.

Its basically every Christmas and birthday present ever wrapped up and given to multinationals at the cost of local businesses, consumer rights and jobs (at least American jobs. It'd probably be great for creating Malaysian sweatshop jobs as we outsource even more labor to the lowest-wage, lowest-legal-protections country in the TPP roster.)

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[QuietLagoon]

...and republicans not want it?...

Since Inaugural Day 2009, the Republicans were against nearly anything and everything Pres Obama was in favor of. The Party of No, or have you been sleeping for these past eight years?

.
The Democrats were in favor of it because of the liberal Hollywood money.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since Inaugural Day 2001, the Democrats were against nearly anything and everything Pres Bush was in favor of. The Party of No, or have you been sleeping for these past eight years?"

How little the left remembers or cares about history.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[MrL0G1C]

Populism, what they do and what they say are 2 different things, nudge wink and a handful of republicans let the treaty through whilst they look like they mostly opposed it. That's politics, opposition parties always criticise what the gov't do if they think it'll get them more votes at the next election.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Anonymous Coward]

So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?

Wow, I think we might be seeing an actual difference. There was never any difference between Democrats and Republicans

But there might be some difference between Trump and Democrats/Republicans. Most of it could be bad, but still...

Re: MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Anonymous Coward]

Reporters are reporting that Lochness has released an official statement. He had this to say on the matter: "imma need bout tree fiddy".

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Mashiki]

Forgot about the part which would allow businesses to import workers from any country and replace you. For Americans, you guys have already seen the bullshit with H1B's replacing people already working at a job. What you'd start seeing what we have in Canada with TFW's, where people even in skilled trades being replaced. The leaked document that was post a year and change back showed that any type of agreement negotiated in secret needs to be nuked from orbit.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[QuietLagoon]

How little the left remembers or cares about history.

I'm a Republican. But that doesn't prevent me from criticizing my Party when they do stupid things, like meet on Pres Obama's Inauguration Day and decide to Say No to everything he does or tries to do. That was verified by the Republican strategist who called that meeting. The Democrats, as bad as they were, did no such thing to Pres GW Bush. You should try to remember some history yourself.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[LifesABeach]

It would be very telling of those that are going to be watching "V for Vendetta"

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[ShanghaiBill]

So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?

Mostly, that is not true. Most congressional Republicans support trade agreements, and most congressional Democrats oppose them. The public is generally opposed, and less educated people are more likely to be opposed. There are two reasons for this: 1) Low income people are more likely to lose their jobs to trade, and 2) it is "simple and obvious" that buying stuff from China is worse than making it in America, and the reasons why that is wrong are complicated and require thinking.

It was widely presumed that TPP would pass in the lame duck session for two reasons: 1) Hillary Clinton would be the next president, and 2) the Republicans would lose control of the Senate. Neither of these happened. So now the Democrats aren't supporting TPP because they are generally protectionist, and the Republicans aren't supporting it either because Trump campaigned against it, and they don't want to be seen opposing their own president-elect.

TPP is dead.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[plopez]

The last I heard was there was an odd coalition between progressive Dems and libertarian leaning Repubs. against it. Basically anti-establisment forces.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[plopez]

There was never any difference between Democrats and Republicans

That is a dangerous misconception. There were always differences. In this case the anti-establishment wings of both parties have an odd coalition of sorts against these trade deals, while the establishment leaders are for it.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[geoskd]

Wow, I think we might be seeing an actual difference. There was never any difference between Democrats and Republicans But there might be some difference between Trump and Democrats/Republicans. Most of it could be bad, but still...

A very large segment of the population no logner cares if trump is good or bad, they are just sick of getting screwed by the politicians, and if trump ends up screwing them just like every other president in recent history, at least some of the elites are likely to take it in the shorts as well. Its the scorched earth mentality, and it is the logical result of 30+ years of policy that favors the wealthy at everyone elses expense. Anyone who thinks that this is a strictly the republicans doing, needs to take a close look a the Clinton economic policy (both of them) to realize that the democrats were just as complicit. These asshole politicians made their own bed over the last three decades and are either so insulated from their actual constituency, or so corrupt they don't care how bad they are screwing the majority of the people. I for one loathe Both trump and Clinton, but at least with Trump there is a chance that those with the power and the money will get the hint and in 4 years will put some policies on the table that actually benefit society instead of the new feudal lords. Policies like single payer health care, and free education are not just nice sounding ideas, they are all that stands between the trump hordes and open revolution. Trump was just a warning shot, the next round will be played with live ammo.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Anonymous Coward]

Then their claims are easy to dispute, yet you opted not to. Apparently I ought to agree with the other AC, given that no one has a counterargument.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[johanw]

> TPP is dead.

So was it's predecessor. They will try again over 4 or 8 years, so stay vigilant!

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[ranton]

"Since Inaugural Day 2001, the Democrats were against nearly anything and everything Pres Bush was in favor of. The Party of No, or have you been sleeping for these past eight years?"

How little the left remembers or cares about history.

Oh yes, because the Democratic party voted in lockstep to prevent the Iraq War, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (Bush Tax Cuts), and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (TARP). Oh wait, no they didn't, because they know how to run a functioning government when they don't hold the presidency. Were you even out of grade school during Bush's terms in office, or do you just go out of your way to stay willfully ignorant of recent political history?

The only major Bush program the Democrats did fervently fight was Bush's 2005 push to change social security, but in that case his own party couldn't even support him (and the public very strongly rejected his plans as well). They did oppose many of Bush's programs, such as his continuing the Iraq War as long as he did, but they never tried to shut down the government in a tantrum like today's Congress.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[shess]

So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?

If we're not careful, we may have to give republicans the nod on this one.

At this point, I think most people would consider me a Democrat, and I did not want the TPP.

When we were cutting out 35% tariff rates and the like, that improves the system. When we're talking about exporting out broken copyright protections to the world, that is just wrong.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[serviscope_minor]

A very large segment of the population no logner cares if trump is good or bad, they are just sick of getting screwed by the politicians, and if trump ends up screwing them just like every other president in recent history, at least some of the elites are likely to take it in the shorts as well. Its the scorched earth mentality, and it is the logical result of 30+ years of policy that favors the wealthy at everyone elses expense.

It's not, though. I've heard it described as a brick through the window of the establishment with a yell of "can you hear me now". But it's not really like that. It's more like driving your battered old pickup at the 10 foot high cocrete wall surrounding the establishment. I mean sure, the nice wrought-iron fence in front of it will have to be replaced and the tasteful flower bed replanted, and there might be a couple of burst tires from the debris on the road. In some ways it will cost a lot more to put right than a simple brick through the window, but the don't care because unlike with a brick, nothing of danger got remotely close to them. And by golly the driver is going to get the worse part of that interaction.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[CanEHdian]

They have 'another coal in the fire' called TiSA (Trade in Services Agreement). They're all the same. First you have a few chapters that actually deal with trade. Then you have 4-6 times as many chapters that have nothing to do with trade, or should be brought forward in another more appropriate forum. One is the "IP Chapter". The first few paragraphs lock everyone in a whole bunch of copyright and related agreements, up to and including ye olde Berne Agreement. That means, that if you want to cecede from Berne to bring copyright term back to a more reasonable 20 years, you ALSO have to cecede from all these "trade" agreements.

Then there's a whole bunch of stuff related to the Internet, and enforcement powers, and responsibilities/safe haven reductions, that they would never get past national parliaments when considered by itself.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[iris-n]

I actually agree with your sentiment, I just disagree with the person: Trump is wealthy and powerful. Why would he do anything against the wealthy and powerful?

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if the goddamed potus is powerless in the face of the corporatocracy, then we're all fucked anyway and may as well go down with middle fingers flying.

As Michael Moore said, electing Trump was the biggest "Fuck you" in human history.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[hibiki_r]

They are definitely getting screwed, but what is so scary is that they think that it's the politicians that are screwing them: Technology is screwing most of them, and all the politicians do is to not pretend that time doesn't keep moving.

Technology is about doing more with less. We can farm with 1/10th of the people we used to. Same with manufacturing or energy extraction. Soon nobody will be able to make money by driving a land vehicle. All of those things are great in the aggregate, but we fail to soften the blow to the people losing their career with no replacement in sight. Trump promised to turn back the clock, but that's insanity: Increasing costs for foreign labor will just keep the local industry for a bit, which will either shed workers anyway, or be less competitive every day.

Other countries just move retirement age for those people forward, and hope there's still areas with enough economic activity that their taxes can feed those retired in their 50s, but that's not the American Way.

This is what is going to be so hard about a Trump Presidency: People asked ,and were promised things that Republicans can't actually deliver. We'll get a recession sooner rather than later, and it's going to get ugly.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[fustakrakich]

Well, we'll just have to look at Truman's emails to Stalin.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[fustakrakich]

They did oppose many of Bush's programs, such as his continuing the Iraq War as long as he did

No they didn't. They signed off on it every time, then grumbled a bit about it to no effect.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Pinky's Brain]

A coalition between Nationalists and Socialists.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[amiga3D]

I'm a conservative and the Republican party isn't anymore. The worst thing to me about Obama was the fact that he wasn't even a good liberal. He pushed a lot of the bad ideas that many Republicans support. Those ideas that lobbyists pay to have shoved on the American people. I at least hoped that President Obama would try to repeal the worst of the disgustingly badly named "Patriot Act." May the cocksucker that originally called it that burn in Hell. One of the most unpatriotic things ever and one of the reasons I did not vote for Bush in 2004. Modern Republicans aren't conservatives. Conservatives don't grow government.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[amiga3D]

It's just the start though. If something doesn't change things will get worse and people will get angrier. This is just the start.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Capsaicin]

From what I've read, the law was written by the MPAA/RIAA cartel, along with considerable input from Big Pharma. The law was designed more for the protection of those conglomerates, and less for any benefit of consumers.

That's the insight from a municipal US perspective.

Globally "the worst parts" of (Disney authored) US IP law have already been imposed (thus also locking the situation in in the US) most notably via the TRIPS agreement enacted under the WTO.

By means international agreements, the IP system has already rigged so that global wealth flows preferentially into the coffers of those US corporations who are engaged primarily in IP related business, to the expense of consumers and business even in developed nations (only countries with scant protection or respect for IP are immune to this flow of capital into the US) and of course, as you pointed out, consumers at home. In the same way that moving manufacturing from the US to labour-cheap countries has benefited consumers world-wide in the form of more affordable goods (albeit goods often of lesser quality), any diminution of the over-reaching IP protection offered mainly to US corporations will benefit international consumers especially, in the form of more affordable medicine, digital technology and also entertainment (hence, of course, the MPAA/RIAA's deep involvement in this process). Now it seems unlikely that entertainment jobs will be off-shored in the same way manufacturing jobs have been and IT jobs probably will be (Russian pop music anyone?), but the excessive income this industry is able to generate is founded upon global IP overreach.

Any diminution of the global IP regime will thus act to stem the flow of capital internationally into the US. While that may not be obvious form a purely municipal perspective, that is the clear reason that US administrations of both political colours from the Reagan administration onwards --1988 the year the US finally signed up to the 1886 Berne Convention marks the flip from America's prior global IP scepticism -- have, at the behest of IP corporations, pursued an ever more aggressive international IP regime.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[ScentCone]

I'm a Republican. But that doesn't prevent me from criticizing my Party when they do stupid things, like meet on Pres Obama's Inauguration Day and decide to Say No to everything he does or tries to do. That was verified by the Republican strategist who called that meeting.

And why shouldn't they have? Obama told them what he wanted to do, and they disagreed with essentially all of it. Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches of government. Obama said he was going to transform everything and do everything he could to steer policy and legislation away from his political opponents' wishes. But you're apologizing that your own party basically said, "Too bad, it's a two way street."

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[ultranova]

A very large segment of the population no logner cares if trump is good or bad, they are just sick of getting screwed by the politicians, and if trump ends up screwing them just like every other president in recent history, at least some of the elites are likely to take it in the shorts as well. Its the scorched earth mentality, and it is the logical result of 30+ years of policy that favors the wealthy at everyone elses expense.

They're tired of elites, so they elect a guy who flies around in a literal gold-plated private jet plane. They're tired of getting screwed, so they elect a professional conman. And they're tired of the wealthy getting everything, so they protest and condemn as socialism every attempt to equalize incomes or provide basic services, such as Obamacare, to the less wealthy.

You ever wonder if maybe there's a reason nobody much cares what these jackasses want?

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[hyades1]

Don't feel too safe about this. I bet they make some cosmetic changes to the TPP and bring it back i a couple of years. And Trump will gleefully sign it, saying something like "I'm not against trade, I'm against bad deals".

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[thejynxed]

Because so many of those wealthy and powerful saw fit to openly mock and ridicule him even before he decided to make a run for POTUS (Example: When he was invited to the White House Correspondents Dinner and then everyone had a good laugh as Obama openly made jokes at Trump's expense).

History is filled with tales of the "wealthy elites" taking their revenge on their peers who insulted them.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[iris-n]

That would be personal vengeance; like using the NSA to discover shit about his opponents in order to discredit them. But he would never do anything in terms of political economy (like raising taxes, or persecuting tax dodgers), because he would personally lose money from that.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[silentcoder]

You really ought to have watched the WHOLE video...

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[silentcoder]

The EC won't do it, unfortunately that's a pipe dream. The trouble is the EC's vote has to be ratified by congress - and the republicans control both houses, there is no way they would ratify any EC vote that doesn't put Trump in the white house. It would be political suicide for them - and the number one problem of American politicians is that they always rate "getting re-elected" as a higher and more important priority than "doing what's best for our constituents". The Democrats are just as guilty here, of course, but the problem remains - America lacks the kind of politicians who are willing to commit career suicide to do the right thing for the people. That is why special interests have so much power, that's why controversial but needed ideas never happen.

Compare this to other countries and it's almost a uniquely American phenomenon. In that regard, I think it's a major argument for term limits on congress. If politicians know they only get two terms there - then the second one (much like a president's second term) becomes about legacy - about trying to achieve something great before leaving. Something you will want to be remembered for. Treating it as a job for life means always, always playing it safe and gives a few (Relatively small) lobby groups way more power than they actually have.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[gtall]

Most of Sanders' supporters were against it. It is unclear to what extent Hillary's support in the primaries was because those voters figured Sanders just couldn't win.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[gtall]

No, they just went around calling Bush a Nazi behind his back. Frankly, I think we should call Bam-Bam Trump a Nazi to his face. Sez he's going to deport 2-3 million. Hmmm....shouldn't be long before the internment camps are set up. They'll need to practice before the re-education camps get set up. Okay, so he's a Commie, he is Putin's bitch, after all.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[The Grim Reefer]

Well, we'll just have to look at Truman's emails to Stalin.

We can't. Lincoln deleted them. But I heard that Nixon is in the habit of keeping backups.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[sabbede]

TPP wasn't about media copyrights, pharmaceutical patents, corporations or consumers. The whole point was establishing an anti-China trading bloc - aligning China's neighbors with the US and against China. You could even say it's about influence and power, not trade.

Re: MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[hyades1]

Well, my friend, let's keep an eye on this and see what happens. It's not likely we'll be able to do much more than congratulate each other for being as cynical about Trump and his backers as we needed to be.

Cheers!

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Trailer Trash]

So why did democrats want it,

Because they're the party of big business, big media, and the 1%.

I cannot fathom how, after Hillary Clinton's campaign, people like you still don't get it. Seriously. You fall hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being pushed by Soros (think hard about this) that the Republicans are the big business party that doesn't care for you, the little guy.

The little guys voted Republican this time because they're catching on. It doesn't mean their lives will necessarily get better, but they absolutely wouldn't have gotten any better under the Democrats. Trump was correct to ask blacks "what do you have to lose?"

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[serviscope_minor]

If something doesn't change things will get worse and people will get angrier. This is just the start.

What though? In the UK many people sided with the establishment (Gove, Johnson, Davis, Fox) to, er, give the establishment a black eye. And in the US they did exactly the same. I know Trump's not precisely the political establishment, but a big-business billionaire with lots of politician cronies is undeniably establishment.

Not only that but the candidates they've selected as "anti-establishmen" are the least likely to support those people in any meaningful manner. So, what next?

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[djinn6]

Education doesn't have to be expensive. Once you get past the elementary school, 90% of education is sitting in a room listening to someone talk. You can replace that with a video or a live stream. It's free, comes with better graphics, and can reach millions of students at once. Plus, you can have the best teacher instead of an average one.

It's really only when you get to the PhD level that you'd want direct, in-person interactions again, though in this case you're interacting with the best of the best and it's more about an exchange of ideas rather than solely being on the receiving end. If you need to limit the number of people who can do this, do it based on academic performance.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[serviscope_minor]

Well if the goddamed potus is powerless in the face of the corporatocracy

The goddamed potus elect IS the corporatocracy.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[amiga3D]

Hopefully they'll at least have enough sense to realize that they can't continue to suck everyone dry. When you take away hope you're left with a bunch of people with nothing to lose. If you have too many of those people then sooner or later they'll erupt. We're not there yet but we're headed down that road. In another decade it could start to get dire.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[amiga3D]

I know the Democrats in Georgia tried their hand at gerry-mandering years back when they ran the state house in Atlanta. They ended up with a Republican majority in that house a decade later. Now they bitch about the Republicans gerry-mandering. I'm not too crazy about the process but it's not a one sided thing.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[ScentCone]

Because they also decided to disagree with things that Obama hadn't even said yet.

Because they very reasonably concluded that someone who highlighted as his policy priorities a laundry list of unacceptable (to them) agenda items was not someone behind whom they wanted to provide their political support - exactly the opposite. You'll also notice that there were many legislative areas where they DID get some collective work done, because that was the basic housekeeping stuff that had to be done. They said they'd work to put the breaks on his entire partisan political agenda because he (Obama) spelled out what his agenda looked like, and his willingness to "use his pen" to get around working with the legislature on matters about which he knew they were and would remain at odds. It's not complicated. He said he was opposed to them, their party, and their agenda - he RAN on that assessment - and they said exactly the same thing. Why the hand wringing?

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[fustakrakich]

Because they knew that just cutting our losses and leaving at that point would be a disastrous move.

And that's different from today, how exactly?

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[tbannist]

"Since Inaugural Day 2001, the Democrats were against nearly anything and everything Pres Bush was in favor of. The Party of No, or have you been sleeping for these past eight years?"

How little the left remembers or cares about history.

And this is why in your world, the patriot act was never passed and the U.S. invasion of Iraq never happened?

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[baristabrian]

I (a poor homeless guy) would personally *rejoice* if we get a little bit more "NO" this coming term. Nothing whatsoever inherently noble or beneficial in being a generation (and/or nation) of "YES" all the time. I've seen more than a few well-intentioned ("right" and "left") parents absolutely *ruin* their kids telling them "YES" all the time. Heaven forbid we deny our children ... or ourselves ... anything. Anything at all. Name it. It's YOURS. FREE. Consequences? What consequences? Just say "YES!" That will fix everything!

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Xenographic]

> Any agreements made in secret should simply be ignored. And the people who try to push them shot.

While I understand the sentiment, I would NOT call for shooting anyone I disagree with in this climate.

Especially not Hillary Clinton, who negotiated the TPP, only to turn against it later.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[amiga3D]

I doubt anyone will repeal the UnPatritot Act. Once evil shit like that gets installed the government is loathe to give up that power. If you'd have watched you might have noticed the Patriot Act is the one thing that Republicans supported Obama on. They extended it and he signed it. Bi-Partisan bills are almost always seriously fucked up shit. The one time we needed an Obama veto we got crap.

Re: MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[subk]

Creation of the what? Law? It isn't law unless it is passed.

Re:MPAA, RIAA and Big Pharma

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?

Actually, it's a lot more complicated than that. I'd say that most Democrats in Congress were against the TPP and most Republicans were quietly for it. Democrats opposed it because unions hate it and the Democratic Party relies on unions for votes. Most Republicans actually favored it because in theory the Republican Party supports all free trade deals. But then you got into the Republicans being the party of "No" which meant that they had to oppose Obama on one hand yet actually approving of what he did on the other. Had a Republican been president and submitted the deal as written to Congress, it would probably already be passed. Being the party of "No" caused them to stall for time and in the end they realized that a significant number of voters are upset about job losses and voting for a deal likely to lead to more job losses simply wasn't going to work.

Good News

[blogagog]

Free trade is great, but the TPP was mostly not about trade. It was about copyright.

Re:Good News

[silas_moeckel]

Yes you can. You think the MPAA and RIAA are needed? No trade and your still going to see every movie and CD show up in the 3rd world. We allready know if they price it reasonably for the local market people will buy it over the bootlegs.

Re:Good News

[sdinfoserv]

"Free" trade only works when both trading partners are on equal status. Tariffs were established to balance the equity. The reality is, labor jobs have been shifted to countries with no environmental laws, no labor laws, no intellectual property laws, and government paid health care. When rational people say, "um, wait a minute, that's not fair to American workers", some oligarchy puppet screams "you're against globalism, fair trade, against jobs and a racist!".
Sorry, that's all b.s.. The TPP is a payoff to the rich for their support of Government elected minions. The only way to fix this is get money out of politics.

Re:Good News

[hey!]

I actually read the chapter summaries of the entire treaty, and it most definitely IS about trade. And it is ALSO about intellectual property. AND it is about environmental protection. AND it is about workers' rights. AND it is about currency manipulation. Oh, and by the way it's about cutting China off at the knees, which is a big deal for the Obama administration. Obama's much keener on using economics to shape geopolitics than most people realize, which is why he has been furtively supportive of the Dakota Access Pipeline despite it's wild unpopularity with his base: it'll be like pouring gasoline on the Russian economic fire.

This is how the world actually works: major changes require a coalition of interests. In an international agreement, it's actually multiple coalitions, one for each country, plus mulitnational entities like corporations. Every interest in each coalition has its own goals, and when they're done hammering out a consensus it HAS to be about about a lot of things.

It's only through the lens of retail politics that something this big becomes about just one thing.

The thing is, this sucker is monster huge. It will transform all the member countries in ways that will be nearly impossible to undo without inviting chaos.

Re:Good News

[MightyMartian]

Tariffs end up costing consumers.

How much do you want to pay for iPhone? Because if tariffs are erected, most of the components in that unit will be subject to punitive measures.

Re:Good News

[ArmoredDragon]

You know why Obama wanted it, of course.

http://www.eonline.com/news/28...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

Re:Good News

[Loki_1929]

Free trade reduces the inequality between wealthier and poorer nations. Great if you're in the latter. Bad if you're not one of the few elites in the former who can make that benefit you. It's not a win-win for both sides as the two-sides-of-the-same-coin major parties have been preaching in the US. It's absurd to believe otherwise. If the Democrats were actually still the party of the working class, they'd be fighting to retrain younger blue collar union workers for realistic transitions and protect older union workers (for whom retraining isn't realistic) from job exportation.

Free trade isn't great for everyone. And as soon as someone came along and admitted that (instead of trying to explain to a 48 year old factory worker who's losing the only job he's had for 30 years to free trade, who has no other skills or education, who has no prospects moving forward, but does have a wife, two kids, and a mortgage, how this is all somehow good for him), all sorts of lifelong Democrats suddenly showed up to vote for that person (who was very much not a Democrat). Let's stop lying about this "rising tide raises all ships" bullshit and start telling the truth: if you're doing something where the skills involved are limited and the labor costs make up a sizable portion of the total costs involved, you're going to fucked first by free trade (because it's cheaper) and second by automation (because it eventually becomes cost-effective). Step one is admitting you have a problem (and this also requires recognizing that these people actually matter). Step two is figuring out what you're going to do for all the third-generation 48 year olds with two kids and a mortgage who are in this situation. And whatever that is, it better be realistic for them and it better pay at least 85% of what they were making before or no amount of belt-tightening is going to keep them going.

Re:Good News

[Altrag]

No. The one chapter us nerds mostly care about was about copyright. The TPP is a humongously long document covering dozens if not hundreds of business interests.

Unfortunately from what I've seen, almost every single one of those chapters includes at least something that should make normal people afraid in some way.

There's a reason why the pro-TPP lobby can't even come up with a selling point beyond how much money could theoretically be made (for their companies and basically no one else.. but they also leave that part off of course.)

Re:Good News

[Bing Tsher E]

I'd be happy if iPhones cost $2500.

Those tards in front of me in traffic couldn't have one, then.

Re:Good News

[BarbaraHudson]

some oligarchy puppet screams "you're against globalism, fair trade, against jobs and a racist!".

Sounds just like what the Clinton supporters have been saying to anyone who dares question he official line, and still say while they riot. Then again, gotta burnish that legacy ... oops, I t'ink it be the broken, tabarnak!

Re:Good News

[BarbaraHudson]

Actually, with automation coming down the pike, it won't be raising the income of the average joe or jane no matter what country they live in. Tariff barriers, on the other hand, will allow each country to specialize in a few things that they can do better than anyone else, and thus sell to other countries despite the tariffs. As opposed to China specializing in everything.

Re: Good News

[Anonymous Coward]

VAT across Europe is applied to goods without regards to where they were produced, so you're talking nonsense.

Re:Good News

[XXongo]

"Free" trade only works when both trading partners are on equal status.

No. Sorry. Learn some actual economic theory. This is not correct.

Re:Good News

[XXongo]

Free trade reduces the inequality between wealthier and poorer nations. Great if you're in the latter. Bad if you're not one of the few elites in the former who can make that benefit you. It's not a win-win for both sides

Actually, according to conventional economic theory, free trade benefits the people in both the richer and the poorer nations. The poorer nations get funds. The people in the richer nations get cheap goods.

Re:Good News

[sjames]

They also cause employment and rising salaries to help you pay for those increased prices. So there's your choices, have a good job that pays well and you have to save for a couple months for more expensive goods but you can also afford food, clothing, and shelter along with health care or you can have cheap phones and a crappy job that barely pays so you can't afford those other things.

Re:Good News

[MightyMartian]

Except that's not how it works. What you'll have is what has traditionally happened, tariffs being used to fend off competition. Consumers end being screwed and the protected industries become less and less competitive.

Re:Good News

[guruevi]

The thing is that regardless of tariffs, goods are going to cost a lot more locally produced than elsewhere. You can get a container of cheap electronics like Android TV boxes produced at $5/piece in China. That includes about 15m of labor per device and materials, they're being sold after handling, shipping, warehousing and boxing for $50-80 stateside retail or ~$20 for 1000 units, the majority of that is stateside labor. Sure you'll save $10 in shipping but you're replacing $2/h labor with $200/h labor (after taxes, insurances, legal, state and federal regulations, inspections...).

Similar hardware entirely sourced, engineered and assembled in the US (parts still from China/Korea) costs about $250/unit, yes, we as a business are paying that for the same hardware because the US vendor and the hardware is a shit ton more reliable and accessible but for the average customer, rebooting a device once a day is considered "normal".

Enjoy paying $5000 for that iPhone.

Re:Good News

[plopez]

yes, but if a worker makes minimum wage then the phone is still expensive. If a worker makes, as they should after adjusting for 30 year's of inflation, $40 an hour for skilled labor then a higher priced gadget doesn't matter it would still be affordable (where did you come up with $2500?).

Adjusted for inflation I am making 1/2 what I should be for my job category. I am getting screwed to the wall.

Re:Good News

[plopez]

What are you going to.do, ban robots?

This has been tried before, and the end result isn't the wonderland you think it is. Stagnating economy and increasingly uncompetitive industry is what you get.

Yes robots can be banned. Please provide a citation for when and where it happened. Please do not say "The 70's" as 3 oil shocks between '67 and '80 really muddy those data.

Re:Good News

[pubwvj]

If TTP were good then why did they hide the details from us? Transparency is key. If TTP were good they would have been crowing about how good it was. Instead they did it in secrecy.

I'm not buying it. I am glad TTP is dead in the water. I hope the sharks eat it so it stays dead.

Re:Good News

[Goragoth]

The thing is, unskilled workers don't matter (economically) in the modern world. They can either find service jobs or we need to provide something like UBI to take care of their needs. Automation is reality and will continue to get better and cheaper. Holding it up is only introducing artificial inefficiency in the system. Even China, where labour is still far cheaper than in the West, is increasingly moving towards automation in its factories. The world is in for a massive tidal shift in how it operates economically, and this will likely be accompanied with a massive political shift as well.

Re:Good News

[ewibble]

What does it matters what it costs, if you have no job to pay for it, or food.

Sure you can get a cheaper phone, with free trade, but that is because produced by effectively slave labor overseas. Guess who gets to keep the lions share of the benefit? While the average workers assets slowly degrade to nothing, buying trinkets that quickly fall apart or go out of date.

This is what get when the only metric you judge success by is how much money is going into someone pocket.

Now they want to own ideas, so you can't even use them without paying a price. Guess what every day people have good ideas all the time, they just don't patient every dam thought that crosses there mind. Even if they did they couldn't afford to defend those patients in court. Ideas are most benefit when they are shared and built upon freely, but that doesn't count to the almighty GDP.

Re:Good News

[ewibble]

Where does unskilled manual labor pay $100/h in the US. if it is costing you $200/h then you are doing it wrong and you SHOULD go out of business. At no point does it become ethical to use slave labor, bypass laws, safety laws in order to make more money. If the laws are unreasonable should be changed, if safety regulations, (companies never lobby the government to change unreasonable laws, oh wait) worker compensation are reasonable they should be applied to workers no matter where they are.

If you product cannot be produced ethically for a cost that is acceptable to consumers perhaps you should not be producing it at all.

Re:Good News

[fustakrakich]

The only way to fix this is get money out of politics.

Worthless sound bite.. What is that supposed to mean? The only proper way to deal with it is to stop voting for people who take the bribes.

Re:Good News

[Pseudonym]

Free trade is great, but the TPP was mostly not about trade. It was about copyright.

Half right. The TPP was indeed mostly not about free trade, it was mostly about investment. The copyright/patent/ISDS/etc provisions that we talk most about here are bad, but they are really aspects of the same central theme of the TPP: protecting investments.

Re:Good News

[sjames]

Actually, it was tariffs on cars that convinced Japanese auto makers to manufacture cars in the U.S. That employed a lot of people. I agree that it doesn't solve all problems. Eventually better and better automation starts taking over. I look forward to that as long as we implement the Basic Income before that happens so everyone can benefit from progress. The tariffs just give us time to get the needed changes in place.

Re:Good News

[guruevi]

Most "unskilled labor" in the US averages about $25/h these days, more if you look at union contracts. Many places like auto factories and most places that do custom work (CNC etc), you're looking at $40-50/h.

Then besides that you have your base employee cost + ~25-30% in various employer taxes (SS, Medicare, State and Federal Unemployment, Workers comp, ...) + 25-50% in health insurance coverage, ample space and safety gear for the employee, recruiting expenses, tools, ...

We haven't even talked about the cost of complying with various legal frameworks and regulations on EVERYTHING, that requires instructing managers, lawyers, HR etc., the cost of covering practically an hour of mandated breaks per day, pensions... and the fact that US workers work ~7.5h/day for only 5 days a week.

Every employee in a "good ol' American business" (the glory days of full health coverage, pensions etc) could easily cost the company as much as what the employee actually gets.

Sure, some of it is required, but you're never going to compete with a country where workers are practically slaves, working 12-15h days 28 days of a month for $2 or less per hour without any regulation on what to dump in the nearby rivers.

Re:Good News

[Loki_1929]

Please visit Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, or any of the other former US manufacturing powerhouses, and specifically the factory towns within those states, and tell the people there about the benefits of free trade. What's been happening for the past 30+ years is that masses of people who are second, third, even fourth generation into factory jobs, who've worked those jobs since they graduated high school, who've been raised themselves and went on to raise their families on the salaries and benefits of those jobs, who have since watches as their friends and family members have lost those jobs one after another, who've stood on the factory floor to hear about how their job is going away in 12-14 months and won't be coming back, who've had to go home to their wives/husbands/kids with the knowledge that the only job they've ever had or ever known is going away, who've had their homes foreclosed and their kids go from great lives to a welfare Christmas, who've wiped out their retirement funds just to try and keep going a little longer - those people have been told over and over by coastal elites from BOTH parties all about how great free trade is because of the cheap shit stocking the shelves of Walmart.

Despite the very obvious feeling from everyone at the top of the food chain, these people are not stupid. As they watch everyone around them - and finally themselves - lose everything they worked their entire lives to build with their blood, sweat, tears, labor, long hours, and tired backs, they're told over and over how good this is for them. They're not stupid. They're losing everything. Everyone around them is losing everything. Those who haven't already lost everything are having sleepless nights over and over because they see the writing on the wall and know they don't have a path forward. Their only hope is to somehow luck out and keep their job until their kids are out of the house and they're close enough to retirement to skate by.

Conventional economic theory isn't doing a goddamn thing for those people, their kids, their spouses, their families, their friends, or their towns. They're getting fucked every which way. And I'm getting a blender that breaks after 2 months because it's a cheap piece of shit built by someone who doesn't care halfway around the world. This isn't good for any of us. And it isn't good for the planet, either.

You want to know why Clinton lost all those "blue wall" states? Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's moments like that, repeated over and over again in places all across the rust belt, driven by globalization and free trade policies that both major parties supported. Trump is the first politician in a generation to really speak to those people in a way that made sense.

Re:Good News

[Loki_1929]

We aren't there with automation yet and it isn't yet their major enemy. Their jobs aren't being replaced by T-1000s, they're being shipped to places like Mexico, China, and others. It's this, repeated over and over again across the rust belt for a generation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Good News

[Orgasmatron]

Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.

Translation: We tried it your way for 30+ years, and it almost killed us. Your theory is wrong, and it is time for you to hang it up.

Re:Good News

[TheSync]

We aren't there with automation yet and it isn't yet their major enemy.

Then why is US manufacturing output at an all-time high despite having 7 million fewer manufacturing workers now than in 1979? (US manufacturing produces more than $1 trillion per year more than 1979...)

Re:Good News

[TheSync]

Under the TPP, on beef products, Japan will eliminate duties on 74 percent of its tariff lines, while Vietnam will eliminate tariffs currently as high as 34 percent.

On machinery, which accounts for almost 6 percent of U.S. manufacturing output, Japan will immediately eliminate all tariffs, while Malaysia and New Zealand immediately eliminate about 94 percent of their tariffs.

About 15 percent of Vietnam's tariffs of 20 percent ad valorem or higher will be eliminated immediately (60 percent will be eliminated within 5 years), which will open that large market much further to U.S. (and other TPP) exporters.

Tariff reductions will occur in large and growing consumer markets, such as Japan and Vietnam, where barriers traditionally have impeded access of U.S. exporters.

Improvement in customs procedures under TPP should help smooth the process of customs clearance and reduce the costs of international trade, especially with respect to TPP members that do not currently employ modern customs procedures.

Express shippers (and the customers they serve) are likely to have more confidence in their ability to deliver goods on a âoejust in timeâ basis.

The development of highly functional and easy-to-use digital technology to expedite customs clearance within the TPP may provide a helpful template that could be adopted by other trading nations.

TPP also liberalizes cross border trade in services, financial services, telecommunications & e-commerce.

Re:Good News

[Cyberax]

It's more complicated. Copyright provisions are really not the major part of the treaty, they are poisoned pills. The bulk of the treaty is good - it explicitly binds the future of Pacific Rim countries to the US economy (and to some degree vice versa).

So TPP is very popular in Asian countries - they don't really care about intellectual property (they have almost none) but they want to trade with the US and NOT with China. I think Obama supports it for the same reason (he's part of the executive branch, after all) - it'll give the US more clout against China and he probably considers IP ramifications to be of less importance.

In short, it could have been a history-altering deal if negotiators were not stuffed by media and pharma corporations' lobbyists.

Re:Good News

[blogagog]

Agreed. If they took intellectual property out of the equation, all would have been well.

Re:Good News

[djinn6]

Sounds great for people who aren't me.

- Most of America

Re:Good News

[kaatochacha]

CNC is unskilled?

Re:Good News

[BarbaraHudson]

The problem with that view is that it has an implicit assumption about the end game - that a country can survive with no jobs after they all go overseas.

When prices were higher, there was more room to use your competitive advantage to put some of that higher price into higher quality.

5 year warranties used to be common in the auto industry. Then, as a way to cut costs, the warranty was reduced to 3, 2, even 1 year (fleet purchases are normally 1 year, which is why rental car companies often sell the car to a sucker consumer before the warranty runs out).

There's just not enough "slack" in the sale price of the car to make them so that they can dependably last 5 years. Just look at the Smart car. 2 year warranty.

Today quality takes a back seat to price. And often, the price is no longer an indication of quality. "Touch disease" anyone?

First Victory!

[fox171171]

Seems like they are trying to make it sound like the TPP was a good thing, and Donald is ruining it for everyone. Except the TPP was definitely a bad thing for anyone who isn't the head of a huge corporation. Maybe this Trump thing could be a good thing.

Re:First Victory!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like they are trying to make it sound like the TPP was a good thing, and Donald is ruining it for everyone.
Except the TPP was definitely a bad thing for anyone who isn't the head of a huge corporation.
Maybe this Trump thing could be a good thing.

You're saying Trump might be good?!?!?!

You must be a RAAAAACIST!!!!

Re:First Victory!

[PsychoSlashDot]

Maybe this Trump thing could be a good thing.

Dream on.

The most important thing that happens when a presidental term expires is that the corporate interests are forced to purchase legislators again. Rest assured something like the TPP will appear after a couple years of "influence" changes hands.

Re:First Victory!

[roman_mir]

Are you joking, insane, stupid or pretending?

Clinton has a private and a public position, which part of that is unclear?

As to Trump, whether he would back TPP or not, his public position made it *embarrassing* for Obama, because if Trump immediately undid what Obama enacted, it would be such an embarrassment, wouldn't it?

Obama has no legacy left, he is embarrassed, he is so fucking embarrassed.

Re:First Victory!

[RichPowers]

While I didn't vote for Trump nor support his campaign, he's in the black right now as far as I'm concerned:

-TPP is dead
-He finished off the remnants of the Bush crime family by humiliating and crushing Jeb! in the primaries. ("Iraq was a disaster," "9/11 happened on his brother's watch" -- pretty amazing he said this in a GOP primary right in their backyard.) Watch the various YouTube videos and Trump sounds like every leftist I knew circa 2006 waiting for the Democratic Party to say as much. Had that corpse of a candidate John Kerry been as animated in 2004, history might have turned out very differently.
-In an act of bipartisanship, Trump also finished off the remnants of the Clinton crime family by humiliating Hillary and her sycophants with the greatest upset of the modern political era.

That being said, his administration can easily go into the red in a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." But until then, this stuff is more exciting and amusing than Game of Thrones. The more assholes he throws under the bus in his pursuit of petty vengeance and self-aggrandizement, the better.

Re:First Victory!

[WaffleMonster]

Only thanks to Sanders Clinton also was opposed to TPP. So even if she had won TPP wouldnt have gon forward.

Hillary would have tweaked it slightly purely for political effect and then enthusiastically supported the changed version.

Re:First Victory!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, keep underestimating him, lefty.

TRUMP/PENCE 2020!

Re:First Victory!

[Anonymous Coward]

She was opposed to the TPP until the election was over, dumbass.

Re:First Victory!

[Anonymous Coward]

People can sometimes be right for the wrong reasons.

Hitler was right to ban smoking on enclosed public spaces (like buses). It's annoying, unhealthy and disrespectful to other people. But overall he was a terrible person for trying to exterminate the Jews. (I realize some Trump supporters may not realize the problem there)

Almost nothing in life is black and white. Naive arguments that do not permit nuance are for Hollywood movies and not real life.

Re:First Victory!

[Jack9]

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

Re:First Victory!

[Calydor]

While I agree with you, it feels odd to me that Congress would be adopting the expected policies of the next President rather than the known policies of the current one.

Re:First Victory!

[hey!]

Except the TPP was definitely a bad thing for anyone who isn't the head of a huge corporation..

Oh, it'll definitely be good for the big multinationals, but the effect on other people is complicated. If you're a migrant factory worker in Malaysia (one of the worst countries to be a factory worker in) it'll prevent your employer from treating you like a slave. If you're an American it'll make some goods cheaper but medicines more expensive -- and we already pay more for the same medicines than anyone else does. If you're a patent or trade law attorney it'll be like the heavens have opened up and are raining money on you.

Re:First Victory!

[Anonymous Coward]

So far the leftists fighting against fascism are behaving pretty fascist themselves so don't give me none of that crap about Trump just yet

Re:First Victory!

[CanadianMacFan]

Why would Congress start working with Obama now?

Re:First Victory!

[Solandri]

That's why it's called a lame duck President. There's little point adopting the known policies of the current President when you can be pretty sure the policies of the incoming President will be different.

And it's not the Congress' job to implement the President's policies. It's the President's job to convince them to implement his policies. Obama hasn't really been able to do that since about 2010, which is why he resorted to executive orders. In that respect the TPP would've faced an uphill battle even if Clinton had won - Democrats tend to be the pro-Hollywood/copyright party. Although the inclusion of big pharma may have swung a lot of Republican senators in favor.

Re:First Victory!

[DaHat]

That whole "elections have consequences, I won" thing doesn't exactly garner much support from the opposition, does it?

And when later you get "I have a pen and a phone" and end up getting rebuked by SCOTUS 9-0 more than any modern President... the effectiveness of the current President quickly ends up in doubt, doubly so when so much of what he 'accomplished' is so easily undone as failures like Obamacare cannot be left to fester as is any longer.

Re:First Victory!

[Altrag]

Eventually sure, but likely not until after Trump's out of office. These things take far too long to negotiate (the TPP was well over a decade in the making -- Bush' government would have been the one to open the initial talks a year or two before Obama was a name anyone had heard.)

If something does creep up that quickly, even if they forego the TPP's infamous secrecy, it would likely have been something initiated under Obama (and there could well be such things out there.. the TPP was big but there's still Europe and South America and India to make deals with.. maybe even the odd country in Africa though I don't know how much they have to offer that we haven't already just taken by bullying..)

Re:First Victory!

[Altrag]

Not really THAT surprising:
a) Its extremely unpopular, even within congress.. especially the members who are likely still pissed off that they were asked to fast track something as large and complex as the TPP with little warning and zero input.

b) There's probably some fear about what Trump would do as well. Its bad enough for the TPP to be essentially killed by the country that pretty much wrote their own wishlist (even if it was a wishlist tailored to big business and nobody else,) but it would be far far worse if they ratified it now and then three months later Trump just drops the axe and says fuck it as he's already claiming he'll do to NAFTA.

Re:First Victory!

[Boronx]

Trump will be for it as soon as they change the name to Trump.

Re:First Victory!

[Boronx]

You are correct. He's also smart enough not to repeal Obamacare.

Re:First Victory!

[BarbaraHudson]

So far the leftists fighting against fascism are behaving pretty fascist themselves so don't give me none of that crap about Trump just yet

What is this "so far" you talk about. All parties in power lately have shown fascist tendencies. Power corrupts.

Re:First Victory!

[Altrag]

She couldn't actually do that without reopening negotiations and that would take the consent of all 12 countries and have to go through the signing process again and so forth. It would take years.

At this point the only choice the US (or anyone else) has is whether to ratify it or not. There's not really any more room for changes, no matter who won the election.

Re:First Victory!

[BarbaraHudson]

And there's a very large overlap between Clinton supporters and people who will believe anything the media says. Case in point: Hillary has a 98.5% chance of winning. The DNC nomination process wasn't rigged. The media weren't doing a cover-up when they didn't make a big thing about Hillary being openly against same-sex marriage while in the senate. Good thing there's video, because with the whitewashing (gaywashing?) that the media has done, nobody would believe it.

Bunch of Butthurt crybabies. Hint: If you're taking your political cues from Miley Cyrus, you might be brain damaged from listening to her old man's Achy Breaky Heart.

Re:First Victory!

[Mashiki]

Correction: He's smart enough to repeal the worst parts of Obamacare, that's what he also said at the beginning too. Though the entire thing should be tossed out, and re-written to be be sensible. If you guys in the US were smart about the whole "mandated healthcare" bit you would have modeled it after our legislation in Canada. And when they tried passing the existing legislation you would have been protesting in the streets. The federal legislation basically boils down to: Feds have oversight, they toss the provinces money. Each province is responsible for care, costs, where things get built, payment and so on. Minimum levels of care are ensured by an independent 3rd party, feds can only step in if the 3rd party says it's inadequate and feds can only take over at the provincial level until the minimum care level is adequate then it's turned back over to the province.

Re:First Victory!

[tinkerton]

But overall he was a terrible person for trying to exterminate the Jews.

That's a strange remark and it shows up now and then. Usually it implies that if Hitler had not tried to exterminate the Jews , people would not be able to come up with an argument against Hitler.

Re:First Victory!

[Phillip2]

"Clinton has a private and a public position, which part of that is unclear?"

The part where you think that other politicians do not.

The question with TPP is whether it will die (and trust me, it was struggling anyway, thanks to the many people who campaigned, protested and highlighted it for years before the US election took it up), or whether it will be replaced. Bit early to say yet. Especially early to say what Trump will actually do.

Re:First Victory!

[melted]

>> Only thanks to Sanders Clinton also was opposed to TPP.

That was her "public" position for the rubes. Her private one was whatever Goldman Sachs told her it needs to be after it paid her $250K per speech.

Re:First Victory!

[MightyMartian]

Why not? You're taking your cues from a reality TV star.

Re:First Victory!

[roman_mir]

The part where you think that other politicians do not.

- first of all I did not say that and secondly you have to make sure you put a caveat in that that you do not in fact know that the private opinion of every single politician is not the same as the public one.

But back to the point at hand, Clinton's public and private positions are now out in the open, Trump's public position is in direct contradiction to Obama's and Clinton's. So my comment stands: it is *embarrassing* for Obama, since basically Trump's public position is to kill TPP and if Obama enacts TPP today then the public idea is that Trump would kill it, and by the way this would take Trump to the left of Obama apparently, so it is *embarrassing*.

AFAIC Obama is an embarrassment on everything, but that's a different story.

Re:First Victory!

[sims 2]

I hated it from the start for the way they tried to do it. It did have good points but even with those it's still a very sorry substitute for any type of NHS. The very worst part of it IMHO was that people were not able to keep their plans as promised second worst is that the medicaid expansion was never done in several states (including mine) which made it look even worse.

I was really (still am) hoping that the ACA was a step toward a better system (if nothing else it really got the discussion going). We don't get a lot of choices for how we want things done but IIRC it was supposed to be a lot bigger deal originally and that was all they were able to get passed.

Re:First Victory!

[Babylon Rocker]

Trump also finished off the remnants of the Clinton crime family by humiliating Hillary and her sycophants with the greatest upset of the modern political era

Forgot to stir the ashes: Chelsea Clinton Is Reportedly Gearing Up for a Congressional Run

Re:First Victory!

[sjames]

Agreed. Obamacare did implement a few insurance reforms, but fundamentally insurance cannot fix the problem that even the most routine healthcare is 4 times more expensive than it has any right to be.

Re:First Victory!

[raind]

The Who were right:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/conway-trump-swamp-231289

Re:First Victory!

[Orgasmatron]

Go find a cash-only doctor. You'll be astonished how cheap things are when there is a functioning market. Or just ask your provider to negotiate a cash price in advance.

Re:First Victory!

[thejynxed]

One forgets that it would also make it perfectly legal for a company like Phillip-Morris to sue any of the signatory nations into oblivion if they ban or otherwise obstruct the sale of their tobacco products and the related advertising that goes with them.

Re:First Victory!

[hyades1]

The reason for that is insurance companies raking off huge sums of money to do nothing more than shuffle papers. If you look at a single-payer system like Canada, you'll find they're about twice as efficient at putting the dollars going in at the taxpayer end of the system into actual health care.

That isn't to say they're perfect (or that there's no waste in hospitals), but the US system is a complete mess.

Re:First Victory!

[sjames]

Even with all of that (good ideas all), if insurance is still involved in routine care, it's still only adding cost.

Re:First Victory!

[BarbaraHudson]

Why not? You're taking your cues from a reality TV star.

Not me. Both parties are cats in mouseland.

Trans-Pacific Partnership was going to be for work

[Joe_Dragon]

Trans-Pacific Partnership was going to be bad for workers rights. With the non us courts that could gut stuff like min wage, over time, safety and more.

This must suck

[WaffleMonster]

All that hard work by megacorps to secretly create a system which enables half the world to effortlessly move capital and chase cheap labor all the while imposing US's draconian over the top IP schemes including MMPA and suing governments for pursuit of public policy that makes megacorps lose money.. poof...gone .. up in smoke.

Re:This must suck

[twokay]

Yup, its certainly a poke in the eye. Now we just have to wait for it all to be restarted again with another name, I dont think the replacement will take 10 years to negotiate. They already have a final draft, it's just a case of waiting for the the political climate to be favourable again.

Some good, some bad

[ChrisMaple]

In other news, Obama has persuaded Trump that insurance companies should still be forced to cover pre-existing conditions. This is what happens when someone doesn't have a sound foundation in either philosophy or economics.

Re:Some good, some bad

[LynnwoodRooster]

Uh, that's been Trump's position for nearly a year. But hey, I guess Obama has to crow about something good coming of this, so taking credit for a position staked out 10 months ago works!

Re: Some good, some bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I guess your comment is what happens when you don't have a sound foundation in how a society works, but only care about economics.
What the hell is a poor person supposed to do when he has a "pre-existing condition" and can't afford the treatment? Just die off? Yeah, fuck the poor.
A society isn't just about money and economics. You are all better off if the people on the lower end of society are better off, too. Less crime, for example, but also much more.

Then of course, you're right, this isn't a job for private insurance companies in the first place. It should be a single-payer healthcare provided by the state/taxes.
But since the current system already makes you froth "communism", you'd never accept a sane healthcare.

Re:Some good, some bad

[meta-monkey]

He always said he wanted to keep that. You're falling for the new media propaganda. First it was "Trump is Hitler." Now that that lie will no longer stand up since Trump will demonstrate that he is obviously not Hitler, the new lie will be "Trump lied about being Hitler and boy are his nazi supporters mad about it! Share this online to mock his supporters, smart liberal you."

I'm a free-trader

[argStyopa]

....too bad TPP had very little to do substantially with free trade, and everything to do with IP and expanding the US's rather ridiculous copyright bullshit to Asia.

Re:I'm a free-trader

[Mashiki]

Trumps stance on NAFTA is also good, especially since that agreement is fair trade. But people don't seem to realize that.

Indeed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The public was excluded from every phase of the process, despite the fact that it would have force of law over all of us. For a long time all we knew about it was from leaks, and the government completely ignored our protests.

I am glad to see this go. Bummed about the surveillance mentioned in a previous article, though.

Regardless of which laws pass and who the president is, the primary takeaway here is obvious: the president doesn't give a shit about you.

 

Trump's got a private position too

[rsilvergun]

he just like to make it public. At one point in time he's taken both an affirmative and a negative position on just about anything. He's Schrodinger's president. In a quantum state of being both left and right wing. But sooner or later you're gonna have to open the box and the waveform's gonna collapse...

As a Canadian

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say that's the first good thing to happen with the election of Trump.

Re:As a Canadian

[pubwvj]

My friends in Canada and in the UK and in the EU (marginally different sort of now) have all been telling me that the TTP was a horrible thing and they couldn't believe Obama was backing TTP.

Ironically, they all hate Trump too.

So we ended up getting Trump and killing TTP. Maybe it is worth the trade off. Time will tell.

Re:As a Canadian

[pubwvj]

The irony is that they're against Trump and TPP and Trump is also against TPP. They are for the same thing as the person they're against. That is irony.

Re:Trump is not anti-trade

[MightyMartian]

The idea that tariffs were invented for "freedom" is absurd. They were invented to protect domestic industries against competition. And the lesson of erecting large tariff walls is that it is the consumer that ends up paying to protect these industries, and the industries themselves become ever less competitive, protected in a nice encirclement of economic privilege. But that cannot be sustained forever, and eventually when the door opens a little bit, the coddled and increasingly indolent domestic industry is crushed.

Besides, the whole fucking thing is going to be automated in a few decades. Even the wage slaves of Bangladesh and China will be out of a job. And then what? Erect tariffs against foreign robots, or even better, against domestic robots?

TPP and NAFTA would be less a problem

[rsilvergun]

if they'd enforce the provisions that punish countries for lax environmental standards (and not the save the whales kind but the poison air/water kind ) and non-existent worker protection.

I could live with NAFTA if it actually leveled the playing field. But our trade deals have been promising to hold 2nd world countries accountable for abusing their citizens since the 70s and haven't done it even once.

Still, this is why progressives keep getting behind these deals. If progressives could stay in power long enough to actually enforce things maybe it'd work. But you're dealing with an electorate that will literally vote the other guy in because "Sure, the economy hasn't collapse in 8 years but, well, it's time for a change"....

Re:TPP and NAFTA would be less a problem

[Megane]

2nd world countries

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Admittedly, China and Vietnam have been doing a lot of manufacturing lately, but that has nothing to do with NAFTA.

Good news!

[mwvdlee]

TPP would have greatly benefitted USA corporation at the expense of other countries.
Since I'm not from the USA, this is excellent news.
Thank you mr, Trump!

Re: Good news!

[KenHansen]

To be fair, HRC was against TPP, after she was for it, and Bernie Sanders and Trump were always against it.

Trump's election probably has little to do with this reality...

Re:Good news!

[Phillip2]

TPP would have benefitted corporations at the end the expensive of individuals in all countries.

Don't thank Trump, though. It was already struggling and had become a hot issue in many countries well before the US election. Also, he might change his mind.

Re: Good news!

[meta-monkey]

The only reason Hillary came out against TPP was because it's unpopular and both her opponents were hard against it. As soon as she was in office she'd say "we've tweaked things a little bit and now it's great! Passed."

Silver lining, such as it is

[HiThere]

It's nice to see that there is one good thing to come out of this last election. And I guess I'd better cherish it, because there aren't many.

Dems were hoping to put worker protections in

[rsilvergun]

and have them enforced for real this time. Environmental protections too (and not the nebulous "climate change" ones but things like clean air and water). It was an extension of the progressive agenda.

The left has been putting stuff like this in trade agreements since the 70s and the right has been ignoring it for just as long. Sooner or later the guard changes and it's easy for these kind of rules to just not get enforced. But I guess the left decided that _this_ time it'll be different.

Re:Dems were hoping to put worker protections in

[Pinky's Brain]

Could you point to any of the drafts where that was actually ever in?

The agreements have provisions to balance all that

[rsilvergun]

they're just not enforced/ignored. Stop voting in folks who won't enforce your trade agreements and they'll work. It's like buying an engine and skipping the oil. It's gonna break.

Democrats are split

[XXongo]

So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?

The Democrats were in favor of it because of the liberal Hollywood money.

You say that as if "Democrats" were a single unit, and all Democrats all want the same thing.

From the very beginning, some Democrats were for TPP, and some were against it. This was a subject on which Democrats were split.

Which is somewhat understandable: the Trans Pacific Partnership is a very long and very complicated agreement (30 provisions plus 4 "annexes"). Whether you're for it or against it depends in large extent on which parts of it you're looking at.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

Re:Democrats are split

[mukinrestak]

Back when the first full text got leaked, I read through the entire damned thing, and while there were plenty of sections that were not fucking wretched, there was not a single one that began to make up for the many sections that were fucking wretched.

Remember when...

[KenHansen]

Remember when the TPP was 'the gold standard' of trade agreements and HRC was 'so proud of all her hard work on it' until Bernie Sanders came out against it, then she suddenly had no idea what TPP was? This administration has a really bad habit of satisfying itself with 'any agreement' instead of holding out for 'good agreements'...

"It" isn't plural

[raymorris]

>> So why did democrats want it, and republicans not want it?

> Mostly, that is not true. Most congressional Republicans support trade agreements, and most congressional Democrats oppose them.

"It", the Trans-Pacific Partnership, isn't "them", most trade agreements. TPP is a secret deal written by the RIAA and MPAA (who coincidentally gave tons of money to the politicians proposing the agreement).

Yes, in general Republicans support the idea that if a guy in Canada wants to buy a widget from me, and I want to buy a foo from someone in the UK, that's great unless there's some specific reason to prevent or discourage it. TPP isn't that principle, it's a specific treaty with specific (bad) legal requirements for US citizens.

Re:"It" isn't plural

[ShanghaiBill]

TPP is a secret deal written by the RIAA and MPAA

That matters to Slashdotters, but to almost no one else. Neither politicians, nor normal voters, consider "IP" to be an important issue. The people that voted for Trump don't care, and likely don't even know, about the IP provisions. The are just sick of foreigners "stealing their jobs". They look at TPP as "another NAFTA" (which is not true).

Re:"It" isn't plural

[mukinrestak]

There's a lot more to it than just the MPAA/RIAA's bullshit, which included everything from absurd criminal sentences for copyright infringement, to DRM circumvention banning, to expanding copyright terms yet again. There's also the pharmaceutical industry protectionism via patents and psuedopatents, the "investor state dispute settlements" aka corporate sovereignty, the worker importing and job outsourcing, the privatization of public services, the defanging of the GPL, the banning of publishing trade secrets, etc.

Trump sounds like whatever you want

[rsilvergun]

that's the trouble I have with him. I don't trust him. He changes on a moments notice. He was practically a socialist at one point in time. Now he's turning the gov't over to Mike Pence & Paul Ryan, who're as right wing as they come.

Re:Trump sounds like whatever you want

[RichPowers]

Agreed, though I don't trust any national politician. Based on Trump's background (real estate, living in a cosmopolitan city like New York, Hollywood shows), I'd characterize him as a Big City party machine Democrat-type -- who somehow owned the entire GOP field and got elected president. Do you think he's really much different than the Chicago/NYC/SF machine politicians?

As for social issues, my suspicion is that Trump doesn't care either way. Unlike Pence, he's not a self-anointed crusader for Evangelical Christianity, but he's also not a left wing SJW who will make bathroom gender or whatever a *defining national issue*.

But like you said, Trump is a wildcard, so who the hell knows. Hence my strategy of tossing out any ideological frameworks and tallying the score; so far it's in Trump's favor, but four years is a long time.

The more I reflect on this election, the more fascinating it becomes.

Re:Trump sounds like whatever you want

[Goragoth]

I agree that I think that Trump doesn't care much about social issues, but that is a problem, because Mike Pence (and the Republican congress) do care, and I worry that they will destroy a lot of the progress that's been made and Trump won't lift a finger to stop it. For example I doubt Trump would go out of his way to repeal gay marriage but would he veto a bill prohibiting gay marriage if it is handed to him by congress?

Both Democrats and Republicans wanted it.

[melted]

Both Democrats and Republicans wanted it. Donald Trump is for all intents and purposes that "independent" candidate people said they always wanted. He just had to run as a Republican because people are too dumb to elect a real independent or a libertarian. Get this: some of the top Republican brass (including former Republican presidents, governors, etc) voted for Hillary instead.

What's with this obsession with confrontation?

[melted]

What's with this obsession with confrontation with Russia? There was never a single country that fought against Russia and did not regret it profoundly afterwards. Can't we just get along and be partners? Do we really have to put nuclear weapons at their borders? What good can this do for us here?

Re:What's with this obsession with confrontation?

[hey!]

There was never a single country that *invaded* Russia that didn't regret it profoundly. Russia (and the Russian dominated Soviet Union) has been successfully confronted many times.

The "obsession" with confrontation is that it's run by an authoritarian who assasinates and jails his political opponents, is killing civilians wholesale in Syria, has subverted his country's electoral process, and has ambitions of creating an empire in Europe. Not opposing people like that is also something people have historically regretted. So the smart thing is to oppose him without invading his country.

Fortunately for us Putin's run his country's economy into the ground with crony capitalism. It's too bad for the Russians but soon the economic disaster is going to curtail his international ambitions.

I'm all for being friends with Russia. I said back in '92 George H.W. Bush was making a big mistake by not extending Russia the hand of friendship. But at present there's no way to separate Russia from Putin, and Putin should be contained.

Re:What's with this obsession with confrontation?

[Pseudonym]

There was never a single country that *invaded* Russia that didn't regret it profoundly.

The Mongol Empire?

Re:What's with this obsession with confrontation?

[Pseudonym]

There was no Russia as we know it back then.

There's a reason why I phrased it as a question. I'm not sure if the Mongol Empire counts as a "country" and if any of the lands that it invaded counts as "Russia".

Getting the money out of politics

[raymorris]

> Sorry, that's all b.s.. The TPP is a payoff to the rich for their support of Government elected minions. The only way to fix this is get money out of politics.

For all of his faults (and he has plenty), Trump will be the first president in our lifetime who isn't dependent on big donors. This may get interesting, it will be different.

What's really stunning is this

[melted]

Clinton has been building up to this election over the last 30 years, and had Bubba as her advisor, a charismatic dude who won two presidential elections, and, if you watch his older videos, used to know how to connect to the "common man".

Trump has picked up politics as a hobby 1.5 years ago, and first defeated 17 other Republican candidates in record time, and then defeated Hillary by a landslide with half the money and half the staff (but 10x the rally attendance). That's pretty badass no matter how you slice it. So I think he's smarter than people give him credit for.

Re:What's really stunning is this

[jez9999]

Clinton has been building up to this election over the last 30 years, and had Bubba as her advisor, a charismatic dude who won two presidential elections ... and raped a bunch of women.

Re:What's really stunning is this

[mister_playboy]

but the only thing approaching a landslide was that he outnumbered her in the electoral college.

The electoral college vote is the only one that matters. The states are allowed to select their electors as they see fit. People who bang on about the legitimacy of the popular vote are fetishizing something with no relevance to the actual election system this country has.

Shit is un-American, fam. You may as well be waving a Mexican flag and chanting "not my country".

Re:What's really stunning is this

[SuiteSisterMary]

In 2012, Trump thought the EC was a horrible, undemocratic institution that was thwarting the will of the people.

In 2016, Trump is just fine with the EC. Funny, eh?

One Canadian law professor

[alexo]

This "one Canadian law professor" is Dr. Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, a syndicated on technology law issues in major newspapers and a member of many boards, including the CANARIE Board of Directors, the CanLII Board of Directors, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's Expert Advisory Board, the EFF Advisory Board, as well as the founder of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.

If you are a Canadian /. reader, I strongly recommend following his blog.

Re:Trump is not anti-trade

[sjames]

Nonsense. They are designed to protect our entire economy from being drained dry due to an "impedance mismatch". They do have the effect of protecting domestic producers from foreign producers who pay their workers less than it costs to live here. They also protect the domestic workforce from foreign workers who's expenses are a tiny fraction of ours. No worker, no matter how good will ever be able to compete if he has to come up with $1500/month to get by when the other guy needs $50 or less.

Re:obama had fewer executive orders

[mukinrestak]

He also had more whistleblower prosecutions than all previous presidents COMBINED, all during "the most transparent administration in history".

Re:obama had fewer executive orders

[publiclurker]

pretty sure that isn't the topic at hand.

Re:obama had fewer executive orders

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually when you combine Executive Orders and Executive Memorandum, which have the same force of law as Executive Orders, it is predicted that at the end of his 8 years Obama will have issued more than any other president. He already leads when it come to issuing Memorandums.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

TTIP

[manu0601]

What about the Altantic counterpart TTIP (a.k.a. TAFTA)? It should be dropped for the same reasons.

Re:TTIP

[dunkelfalke]

EU has put all TTIP talks on ice thanks to Trump's election.

Re:TTIP

[manu0601]

[CETA] would apply "partially", before even being ratified.

Unelected politicians agree on a treaty in secret and it applies even as member of parliament did not see it!

EU is now so anti-democratic that it does not attempt to masquerade as is anymore. Unfortunately, enough people are still convinced of the countrary, and this will cause this post to be modded down to troll.

Re:Trump is not anti-trade

[FeelGood314]

Tariffs and duties were originally for revenue purposes. Up until a few hundred years ago they made up a good chunk of most countries income.

They want to deny Trump credit for killing it, too

[Xenographic]

At times like this, I'd like to remember Google for having sold us out on the TPP:

https://blog.google/topics/pub...

Thanks for nothing, sellouts.

Thanks, Trump!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at that. He hasn't even taken office yet and already we're seeing massively positive changes. First, Obama has been forced to FINALLY stop supporting the Daesh/ISIS in Syria (a reversal of the last six years of policy, aimed at allowing him to attempt to take some credit), and now this evil "trade" agreement will die the death that it deserves.

When you factor in the fact that we also managed to put World War 3 on hold by keeping Hillary "The nuclear option is on the table" Clinton out of the White House, this is starting to feel like one of the most positive weeks in human history.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[silentcoder]

>Can't afford democratic plans anymore.

You don't have one. Obamacare was a republican plan, originally written by the heartland institute and first implemented in law by governor Mitt Romney. Why do you think the left was never happy with it. We only tolerated it as "better than nothing" we never thought it was "good" - it was Obama's 'reach across the aisle' move to do healthcare reform EXACTLY as republicans have always wanted to do it - and then suddenly they hated it.

America needs truly Universal Healthcare - along with price controls on pharmaceuticals. You want an actual democratic plan ? It means putting all the insurance companies out of business for ever.

Re: ObamaCare is too expensive!

[nehumanuscrede]

The only way to bring healthcare under control so folks can afford it at all will be to regulate it.

When you allow Big Pharma and Hospitals the ability to charge whatever they want, does it surprise anyone when they put their profits first ?

Regulate it and you'll go a long way in removing the need to have health insurance at all.

The current state of healthcare in this country is barely treading water as it is. We're already seeing folks opt out of the plans due to high costs. Once enough go, the money to sustain the rest is gone and the whole thing implodes.

The ONLY way this works is the plans have to be cheap enough for folks to afford. Two ways to achieve that:

1) Get more folks to sign up* and / or
2) Regulate the healthcare industry

*Unlikely given the premiums and out of pocket costs are quickly rising.

Don't regulate it and this will forever be a problem.

Healthcare is a critical infrastructure. It should not be a system driven by profits.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[Trailer Trash]

America needs truly Universal Healthcare - along with price controls on pharmaceuticals. You want an actual democratic plan ? It means putting all the insurance companies out of business for ever.

Thank you for your honesty. Please understand that this is why the Democrat party is in major decline at every single level in the US (federal, state, and local). Your party will continue to lose until you understand that your views are 180 degrees different than most of the country.

Most people were happy with healthcare before Obamacare. Now they're seeing premiums go up astronomically (125% in AZ this year) if they buy from an exchange. Many exchanges are now in a death spiral where they will have to raise rates like that as fewer people can afford them and are dropping out.

It's fun to say "it's a Republican idea" but no Republican voted for ti. It's your baby, deal with it.

Actually, don't worry. Thanks to the morons in the DNC the Republicans own the entire federal government so they won't need your help to deal with it.

75% less from big donors

[raymorris]

Clinton received four times as much from big donors.

In the primary, Trump paid for his own campaign, while Clinton was funded by Wall Street. In the general, Tump received, in total, about half the donations that Clinton did. Trumpâ(TM)s campaign has directly received 27 percent of its funds from small donations (less than $200) while Clinton received 16 percent of its money in donations of $200 or less.

Further, Trump still has $2 billion of his own money. He's not DEPENDENT on campaign donors. He'll take a donation, but he doesn't need it. He can run his re-election campaign without you, Mr. Special Interest.

Candidates always mark their own contributions to the campaigns as loans rather than donations, though they don't get paid back, because of campaign accounting rules. Also, in Trump's case, it's effectively a way of saying "I'll pay for whatever is needed". Like when your mom handed you a twenty and sent you in the store for bread and milk, expecting you to come back with change. He hands the campaign $50 million of his money, they spend $40 million and when it's over they can give him back the $10 million that wasn't spent. They couldn't so easily give him back the leftover change if it were labeled a donation.

Gee, a candidate wants to hold an event with 1,000 guests, so he needs a hotel with banquet facilities for 1,000 guests. Also signage with the candidate's name, etc. Gee, right there I see a very nice hotel with banquet facilities for 1,000 guests and it already has the candidate's name on top, as a 40 foot long gold-plated sign. Should we use that one, or the Motel 6 down the street? OF COURSE when you need a facility to host an event promoting TRUMP you use the beautiful facility with the TRUMP logo everywhere. To do otherwise would be stupid. A couple months ago from my office window a saw an airliner fly by on it's way to land. From my office I could see very clearly the huge gold letters that said TRUMP. When you're promoting Trump for president, and he already has a 757 with giant gold letters saying TRUMP across the side, OF COURSE you use that flying billboard, renting a plain plane would just be stupid.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[Hulfs]

Tell me how rate hikes are somehow the fault of the legislation and not pure greed on behalf of the insurance companies?

Insurance companies got the biggest handout in their industry's lifetime (Obamacare requiring everyone to carry insurance) and yet they're still raising premiums at a 5% rate year over year.

Re: Low life NIGGER ASSHOLE Obama loses THANK YOU!

[DEN_GUY]

Wow. I haven't seen overtly racist troll in a long time. It's like seeing a live Dinosaur.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[wyHunter]

This is absolutely untrue. I lived in Massachusetts when Romneycare came in. NOTHING in that state happens without the Democrats - they have the overwhelming super majority of EVERY state government apparatus. Own it buddy, it's your gang's doings.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[silentcoder]

So... just because they signed off on it magically makes it NOT something proposed by Romney and written by the Heartland Institute ?

Dems only EVER signed off on it since it was the ONLY reform the republicans would buy into. That was what the dems in Mass. did, that's what the ones in congress under Obama did.

The mistake Obama made was to think he could cooperate with the republicans and work together on his vision - and he chose a republican darling plan to try and preserve that. But they had no intention of ever working with him on anything -even something they had wanted for decades. So then they called their own plan evil and pledged it's repeal. If Obama had known that, we'd have had medicare for all instead - since he had a dem majority in both houses and COULD have passed that. It would be a better, and cheaper, plan - the reps would have squeeled with no more effect than they did against the ACA and by now if they threatened a repeal they'd have a revolution on their hands.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[Trailer Trash]

Also as do most liberals silentcoder fails to understand the concept of federalism. If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts chooses to experiment with a government subsidized health care plan and I don't think its in my best interest I can move to New Hampshire or Connecticut or even Texas, without giving up my U.S. citizenship.

And more to the point the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can actually experiment legally. The US government can't legally do anything with healthcare, anyway, as it's not one of the few powers granted to it by the Constitution.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[silentcoder]

>Universal health care is a moronic idea. Only price controls are more moronic. The only thing prices controls do is create shortages. Medicine will be cheap if you can find it.

Weird... the whole WORLD has implemented both - and this outcome hasn't happened ANYWHERE.
  They all have better quality healthcare than the USA, that more people have access to (as in the entire population - no exceptioons), and they all pay LESS for that than you do for worse quality that fewer people can get.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[wyHunter]

No. The Dems had WH, House, and Senate during the ACA debate. It didn't matter what the Rs said - remember, not one R voted for it.

Re:ObamaCare is too expensive!

[silentcoder]

Are you really that naive or ignorant ? They didn't need R votes - true, but they also knew it was unlikely to remain that way, the party that holds the whitehouse almost always loses both senate and house seats in the midterms - they chose a republican dream plan in an attempt to be bipartisan for the sake of the next 6 years afterwards where it was unlikely they would have a congressional majority.

Their attempt at being bipartisan was not well received by a republican congress that swore on inauguration day to undermine and oppose anything Obama did - no exceptions whatsoever. I swear if Obama had proposed to give John McCain the medal of honor (one of the only military medals he hasn't received) the republicans would have found a a reason to oppose it.

Munchkins

[DarthVain]

Everyone should be singing "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead"!

At least from this Canadian perspective the TPP was a horrible idea from the start, and made worse as time went on. The fact that it is dead should be seen as perhaps an unintentional success of Trump.

I get the general idea of was was essentially a trade pact against China to limit their economic dominance nationally. However because of all the corporate corruption you have to ask at what cost? This thing was basically written by a bunch of the largest most wealthy corporations to further their own interests, not the people in any of the nations involved. Anyway I am glad that it is dead, and I think most people are better off for it.