Besides Social Security benefits being delayed
Baby Boomers are wondering whether or not to get out of the market all together. Although anyone involved would hate to see a run on banks and the resulting disaster many retirees, 60 and older feel as if they would not recover financially if their nest eggs took yet another hit like in 2008. One even timetabled his cash out at the 14th or 15th of October.
According to Market Watch of the Wall Street Journal:
The government is expected to hit the current federal debt limit on Oct. 17. If the
debt ceiling IS NOT increased, the government will be limited to spending only cash on hand and coming in the door. The Treasury Department will have to decide who gets paid and who gets left in the lurch. (It's looking like the poorest, most defenseless are targeted).
Interest payments on the existing federal debt will get top priority. According to the site, a Social Security spokesman said that the agency will began issuing its warning to retirees and other inquiring parties after consulting with Treasury officials.
Similar warnings could be issued to recipients of just about any kind of federal benefit, of course. But the roughly
46 million people who receive Social Security retirement and spousal benefits represent a large, often vulnerable and particularly politically active slice of the citizenry.
Stop fighting the president and Obamacare through the pocketbooks and wallets of the poor. We do not have the financial cushion of the rich. They can afford to take the hit, we cannot. But, while we fight this good fight, apparently another good fight awaits.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations are considered controversial in that no one can be told the details of said agreements and negotiations because they are deemed classified. In the past, member nations who tried to get similar trade agreements together would publish a draft of what they are working on but the TPP decided not to do so because, again, when a draft of a work-in-progress is published the people who are affected by the agreements complain or want input. So goes the decision to keep the TPP secret. Because of the current government shutdown, Pres. Obama could not attend the latest rounds of negotiations and discussions in Asia this month.
“We very much view
stakeholder input, whether through our cleared advisers or other stakeholders, as absolutely critical. We’re at a stage in TPP where we’re going to have to make difficult decisions. I imagine that not everyone will be 100 percent pleased with every decision, but we can guarantee that we will seek your input, we will consult with you. We won’t make these decisions in isolation. And we will be proactive about getting your participation in this process," said Michael Froman, a U.S trade representative.
I understand that inclusiveness can be viewed as bogging down a fluid process in that we all have different learning speeds and some people intend to push their agenda using deception and lies. The biggest problem with the TPP outside of the secrecy of it is that it allows global corporations to sue the federal government if it does not stick to the TPP agreement. Furthermore, there are said to be enforceable rules and laws against the American People lest they decide to exercise their right to free speech—that these people may be detained indefinitely without trial.
So far there are 12 (and growing?) nations involved in the international trade agreement and in order to ratify this agreement all parties must be in agreement. I hear some of the leaked portions of the agreements will force the employees of global corporations to accept the rule of the corporation (do what massa say do) and will have the force of an international court and U.S. government on the side of the corporation. Currently, if a big corporation impedes on the rights of the little people, the U.S. government could be called upon to intervene and make a decision whether or not rights were trampled or if laws are being broken in the form of a U.S. Attorney's Office or another regulatory agency inquiry.
The country's other trade agreement partnership, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is "a proposed bilateral free trade and investment agreement between the United States and the European Union," according to the website
fairworldproject.org.
Because trade between the U.S. and E.U. has already been liberalized over the years and accounts for one third of global trade and nearly half of the world’s GDP, many of the contentious debates of TTIP will revolve around the non-tariff barriers (sometimes called “trade irritants” by big corporations). Non-tariff barriers include many laws and public safety measures designed to protect a country’s citizens but which make trade between countries more complicated. Negotiations on TTIP or (Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement) TAFTA began in July 2013.
A comment by "
Chuck" on October 7 sums up the issue of controlling U.S. laws.
"I have read bits here and there about the TPP. From what I gather it's far more about control than trade. Other nations will have say on laws here in the USA that they do not like, like 2nd ammendment/cap&tax, mining/drilling rights. Corporations will have the ability to make laws( like they are doing with this corporate boondoggle called tpp) It involves internet controls, ending free speech the corporations and Gov don't approve of and to a point eliminating borders including free travel for just about any person or terrorist out there. That is a "small" part of it."
The whole agreement is unclear to me and others because it is a secret to but a few and they are sworn to secrecy. This secret trade agreement is upsetting to congressional committee members. I will provide links so that you can think this matter through for yourself. If it seems one-sided against the TPP, it is because the TPP has yet to bring its details to light for public debate so I am limited in what information I provide. I found an old Democracy Now! video from last June and a
very suspect and crazy website (in my opinion) that may shed some light on the debate at hand.
