So, TPP and Obama. Thoughts?

[babylonsister]

I might not understand this enough, and what I have heard is a different story from different mouths, so what do you think?

I as an avid Obama fan, don't want him to do this. I trust too many people who are against it.

What do you think is the motivation?

[NYC_SKP]

1. I want to think that this will go the way of the Keystone pipeline deal...

...But I also understand that this is exponentially larger, the power behind it is huge, I don't even know what it's about.

Hoping it is either killed or turns out to not be the horrid thing we fear it might be.

[rurallib]

2. I have always looked at Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as old Rockefeller Republicans

very socially liberal and very tight with Wall Street. I think this is very much in line with Obama's conduct vis-a-vis Wall Street from day 1. This is why he was #6 on my candidate list in 2008, just ahead of Hillary.

So color me not surprised, but very saddened that he is putting so much of his prestige backing this obvious pile.

[Cha]

15. President Obama is a Democrat. He has excellent Democratic Accomplishments.. I don't care how

many throw around the "wall street" insults.

This is the Barack Obama Group.. please don't come in here with your cheap pot shots.

[rurallib]

18. I apologize for offering an honest opinion

I did not check to see if this was the Barack Obama Group before I posted.
I will be more careful next time. When I see it is the B.O. group, I shall abstain.

[Cha]

19. Good for you. That's just it..an "opinion".

[KMOD]

3. After watching his interview on Chris Matthews tonight,

I believe that he sincerely believes this will help the economy. I think he is proud of whatever labor and environmental stipulations he has put in place. I believe he feels that if we don't address this, China will continue to hurt our economy.

[babylonsister]

4. My problem is that Labor doesn't agree at all. That's one of them. So why?

I need an answer,who's right or wrong.
I need to read up more on this.

[KMOD]

5. I too, need to do more research.

I think it's one of those issues that is not very clearly black or white.

The President did say in the interview that he understands where Labor's disagreement stems from, but related it to harm that was caused in past trade pacts. He feels that his trade pact rights the wrongs of the past.

[Hoyt]

32. While I understand it, I think "labor" is afraid of change, not realizing

they will do better if we open up new markets. From a less optimistic standpoint, "labor" doesn't have any idea how bad things will be if we take the short-sighted approach and do nothing.

I get so-called "labor" has been screwed a lot. But not pursuing and securing new markets, watching the world pass us by, etc., ain't gonna help. Things will not improve trading among ourselves.

Almost everyone of use work for corporations. Large successful corporations usually pay better. It doesn't do any good to penalize corporations. With that said, we need more socially minded managers and even investors. Corporations need to be taxed heavier, and made to pay up. We need incentives to keep jobs here, and penalties for bad behavior.

[PoliticAverse]

6. I think the people he considers to be the most knowledgeable on the subject say it's a good thing.

And he trusts their judgment.

[babylonsister]

8. You are wrong, and I would alert

but I won't because I think you should let your freak flag shine. Just get out of the Barack Obama group. But before I go, prove he never worked hard. You're an idiot. So now you can flag me.

[Drunken Irishman]

9. I will, however, alert.

Fuck this guy parroting right-wing attacks about the President.

[Cha]

13. Thanks for alerting.. what an idiotic thing to say. Shows he knows not a damn thing about the

President.. just more deep skull brainwashing from the right or left.. wherever the hell it came from.

[sheshe2]

12. Sorry, bsis...

I didn't see your Op til now. I blocked them from the BOG.

[lamp_shade]

10. Good to know I'm not the only one confused about this. Most of the arguments

against it, IMO, aren't arguments at all.... just mostly "I'm against it"... period. The few arguments I've listened to make little sense to me, but that's because I haven't taken enough time to look into and understand what the TPP is all about. To this point, I haven't had an opinion so I've just kept my mouth shut. It hasn't been on my "issues" list. When Ed Schultz starts his show with loud, obnoxious bellyaching about TPP, I turn the channel. I will always remember him bellowing FOR the Keystone pipeline before he was against it. My attitude changed last night listening to Obama. I understood much of what he was saying and to me he sounded sincere. I cannot believe he'd be pushing this for personal gain. Most of all, I admire him for sticking to his guns and not caving in to the opposition. He wasn't afraid to say "____ is wrong". He said he'll gladly debate anyone on any point in the proposed agreement.

I liked the roundtable format. I'd like to see more of that, only with opponents next time. I think we'd all learn a lot.

[Jamaal510]

49. I'll be honest;

When Ed Schultz starts his show with loud, obnoxious bellyaching about TPP, I turn the channel. I will always remember him bellowing FOR the Keystone pipeline before he was against it.

this is exactly what I do, too, whenever I hear him bring up the TPP. I've gotten to the point where I'm sick of hearing Ed ranting about it on his show every day, and some of the things he says about it (such as being "NAFTA on steroids&quot sound borderline hyperbolic. The final version of it isn't even out yet to judge like that for sure, and O elaborated on how he intended for the TPP to be different from and fix some of NAFTA's errors. I've heard him jump to conclusions early on and turn out to be wrong, including the situation that you mentioned, and I'll never forget his overreaction to O's 1st debate performance in 2012. In fact, everyone on the panel that night except Rev. Al acted like it was going to put O in a deep hole against Willard, but it didn't.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I have a background in shipping which gives me some...

perspective in this, although I don't claim to be an expert.

The first thing to realize is that trade exists and has always existed. Ancient civilizations realized that each nation had things others might want, and that it was often easier to buy and sell than invade and take. Vikings are known as warriors, but their real business was trade with the fighting just to bring you to around. They traveled to as far as middle Asia looking for things to buy and sell. Yes, they took a lot of stuff, too, but the point wasn't going to war for the fun of it, it was to get stuff. Marco Polo went to China and Columbus sailed to find a water route to China.

The British Empire existed not simply because kings and queens had some urge to rule the world, but because the huge trading companies wanted secure sources and markets.

Today we have marvelously efficient means to get things from here to there and there is no way we will go back to simple local supply. We can get fresh vegetables in the northeast in January and have a choice of automobiles from four continents. We like it that way, and won't go back.

So, as long as trade exists it must be regulated somehow. There is no worldwide authority to write and enforce rules, so the only workable way we've found is to agree to treaties, and hope once one is written everyone will abide by it.

And there's the nut of the thing-- in order to reduce the chances of some country going rogue and walking out, the treaty terms often have to be less agreeable or strict than some might like. But, an agreement is absolutely necessary to avoid anarchy and reduce the chances of Viking trade (i.e war).

The first thing to know about the leaked things about the TPP is that leaks are often engineered as signals to the home team or just to see how things might play out. So, getting all worked up about leaked horrors might actually work in keeping the worst of them out of the final draft. Other than that, they mean little.

The main thing about the TPP is that is specifically to counter the new Chinese place in the world. China has managed to become the fourth, and largest, player in addition to the US, Japan and Europe and threatens to become larger than all of them combined. The TPP is to balance that Chinese economic dominance.

Will it be perfect? Of course not and some on all sides will be hurt while most should see their lot be at least a little better. That's pretty much as good as it gets with most of the things we do. Will rich companies get richer? Sure, but they're going to get richer anyway and with controls in place the rest of us should get hurt less and may even share a little in the profits.

[sheshe2]

16. Thank you, TreasonousBastard.

Your post helped me a lot. Reasoned explanation instead of the usual hair on fire, 'we are doomed.'

Actually. I think this should be an OP, yet you would probably get flamed.

Again, thank you.

[guillaumeb]

27. Interesting argument/opinion.

Especially when you wrote:
"The main thing about the TPP is that is specifically to counter the new Chinese place in the world. China has managed to become the fourth, and largest, player in addition to the US, Japan and Europe and threatens to become larger than all of them combined. The TPP is to balance that Chinese economic dominance."
My response:
So the TPP is geopolitics in action. All about economic dominance. And yes, NAFTA did cause an increase in trade, but the benefits mainly went to the top 1%. As to the supposed benefits for the US:
"The United States had a small but relatively stable trade deficit with Canada and Mexico(combined) in the 1980s and early 1990s. After NAFTA took effect in 1994, this country developed large and rapidly growing deficits with these trade partners."
Read more: http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/economy/the-costs-and-benefits-of-nafta.html/#ixzz3YGIFeG00


There has been plenty of information out there that industry lobbyists are doing the actual writing of the specifics of the legislation. That concerns me greatly and it should be a concern for everyone. We are told that the specifics must be kept secret, but we are not given a credible reason as to WHY the specifics must be kept secret.
From a Bill Moyers article:
Yet the actual text of the agreement remains under lock and key. That represents a significant break from the Bush administration, which in 2001 published the text of a proposed multinational trade agreement with Latin American nations.
“It is incomprehensible to me that leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP, while at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge of what’s in it,” wrote US Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-VT), in a letter to Froman last month.
http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/06/trans-pacific-partnership-huge-deal-kept-secret/

US citizens and Congress members cannot see the specifics of the legislation but corporate CEOs can see them? See link below:
http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/

[sheshe2]

14. Hey, bsis.

I have a new niece by marriage. Her dad is kind of a biggie in the Unions in Washington DC. The whole family are fans of the President. When I get a chance I will ask her about his take on this.

[Cha]

17. "Will massive Trans Pacific trade deal hurt American workers? Labor Secretary Thomas Perez pushes

back"

snip//

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez stands at the center of this war. Well respected on the left as a serious advocate for government as an agent for positive change, he is trying to persuade unions and liberals to support the deal. I asked him to respond to all the criticism; a lightly edited transcript follows

snip//

THOMAS PEREZ: I share the skepticism that my friends have about NAFTA. It was woefully weak in protecting workers and on the enforcement side. The question is: Can we meaningfully build a trade regime that has as its North Star protecting American workers and American jobs through meaningful enforcement? I think we can. It’s imperative that we not default to the status quo, which would mean we don’t fix NAFTA.

We have to bake labor provisions into the core of an agreement. TPP would do that. Under NAFTA, countries had to simply promise to uphold the laws of their own nations. Now the provisions baked into TPP are: You must enact or make sure you have already in place meaningful labor protections, such as the freedom of association, health and safety, acceptable conditions of work.

The rest..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/20/will-massive-trans-pacific-trade-deal-hurt-american-workers-labor-secretary-thomas-perez-pushes-back/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6545555

Our Labor Secretary's take.. Such differences of opinion! I trust President Obama knows what he's doing. I can't imagine why.

[ucrdem]

20. NAFTA done right in other words.

That's been my impression too. Great quote, thanks Cha!

p.s babylonsister I'd add two things: 1) it's intended to boost imports and bring jobs, and I expect it will if it ever passes, and 2) it's part of his job as outlined in the Constitution and established by recent practice.

One final observation is that I don't remember any president taking a beating like this from his own party over a trade deal and that includes Clinton's NAFTA and Nixon's China initiative. But Obama being Obama has to work 10 x harder to defend legislation that is 10 x better than anything that has gone before. Old story I guess. . .

[treestar]

22. +1

There is not way Obama would do something that "hurts American workers."

[freshwest]

52. A link to what is available from US Senate right now, and can be downloaded. American workers are

highlighted in almost all the first paragraphs as one reads. It requires '7-second thoughts' to grasp the language. Here is what I posted in reply to something who dissed the whole thing and PBO:

A DU post led me to this page:

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/04/elizabeth-warren-is-not-telling-the-truth-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal/

The embedded link won't post, it immediately uploads the PDF. To get what I have, read the paragraph which says this:

When Senator Warren calls TPP a “top secret” deal, she’s not telling you the truth. Any member of Congress can see it now, and before Congress votes on it, the final deal will be posted online for 60 days. What we can see now is the USTR summary of the deal, which, granted, isn’t the deal, but it isn’t nothing.

Click on 'USTR summary of the deal' in that paragraph at link.

When you get it, you will find it was created by the US Senate and is entitled:

Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015.

And it is 113 pages long.

I consider myself a proud liberal and atheist and a progressive, but I don't waste time telling anyone in such terms, so where does that come from?

And I merely referred to a post that I did not make, using a Biblical reference, to tie to yours.

As for sharing through email addresses, it can lead to doxxing. So I don't do that with anyone.

The pdf has red flags, on subjects that some at DU agree with and I don't. But the intent is protecting worker rights, business and employment, all in the USA. Not for the benefit of any other nations.

PBO has spoken against the sex trade and other forms of slavery and elminating child labor. He has addressed that we are competing with nations for whom such things ARE LEGAL. Anything that breaks that cycle benefits human beings, and American workers. These are all out of the tradition of labor for one who has learned the deeper basics and not the slogans.

I am also a unionist who worked and organized for unions, women, minorities. the Commons and mobilized against war, racism, nuclear and chemical degradation of the planet, sexism, corporate rule, homophobia, ecological destruction, and abuse of all groups for almost half a century.

Labeling me and others as a third wayer, corporatist, bootlicker, authoritarian, idol worhipper or any of the cheap names tossed around here will simply ensure a spot in my Bucket List with the RW Ignoratti.

Cha!

[babylonsister]

21. Thanks for your input, everyone.

Yes, I did need to 'hear' some reasoned voices and arguments, and am grateful you piped up!

There's a long way to go til this is an actual done deal; I'm sure the furor won't die down, so I will try to pay more attention.

[treestar]

23. Certain people trying to make this into a bogeyman

to use to bash, but they do not really know what it is or understand it.

I hate they've managed to repeat themselves until they have made it "true" that it is bad and we feel nervous "defending" it.

[lovemydog]

24. I take him at his word on it.

He feels that if the US doesn't write the legislation for trade among Pacific nations, China will and it would be much worse if they write it.

He feels it greatly improves the language from the outdated NAFTA agreements that assisted in shipping our jobs overseas.

He supports unions. But he feels if he can help improve the lot of many working people in the USA for generations to come, without hurting unions too badly or not at all, then as President he must decide on what's best for all Americans.

He thinks it's good not only for Americans but for others around the world.

He thinks about his daughters and the world in which they will grow up. By extension, he is trying to do what's right for all kids their age.

I will hear him out. I will read and study the bill. I currently oppose it because so many progressives do. But I also recognize that many of them are feeling the heat from big unions on it. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Until I have more information I'm opposed, but I'm just one person.

I still greatly respect President Obama.

[great white snark]

25. I'll take my faith in him over hyperbole, conjecture and machinations any day.

What little faith I have left after it being physically ripped from me during Bush's war I gladly entrust to President Barak Obama. It's not blind faith-it's well deserved.

[Cleita]

26. I can only think of two words and one phrase, blackmail, bribery or drank the Kool-Aid.

Bernie Sanders has this to say about it.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP)
AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED
 

 
The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest
multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of
American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world.
 

 
The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall
Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty,
the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process.
 

 
Further, all Americans, regardless of political ideology, should be opposed to the “fast track” process which
would deny Congress the right to amend the treaty and represent their constituents’ interests.
 

 
The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the
Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to
compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the
United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed trade
agreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle class
and increased wealth and income inequality. The TPP is more of the same, but even worse.
 

 
During my 23 years in Congress, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA and PNTR with China. During the
coming session of Congress, I will be working with organized labor, environmentalists, religious organizations,
Democrats, and Republicans against the secretive TPP trade deal.
 

 
Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to
boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights;
dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge
our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America,
the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of
keeping the content of the TPP a secret.
 

 
10 Ways that TPP would hurt Working Families
 

 
1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
 

 
According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the TPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than
130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
 

 
·∙ Service Sector Jobs will be lost. At a time when corporations have already outsourced over 3
million service sector jobs in the U.S., TPP includes rules that will make it even easier for
corporate America to outsource call centers; computer programming; engineering; accounting;
and medical diagnostic jobs.
 

 
·∙ Manufacturing jobs will be lost. As a result of NAFTA, the U.S. lost nearly 700,000 jobs. As
a result of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, the U.S. lost over 2.7 million jobs. As
a result of the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. has lost 70,000 jobs. The TPP would make
matters worse by providing special benefits to firms that offshore jobs and by reducing the risks
associated with operating in low-wage countries.
 


2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws
before international tribunals.
 

 
The TPP creates a special dispute resolution process that allows corporations to challenge any
domestic laws that could adversely impact their “expected future profits.”
 

 
These challenges would be heard before UN and World Bank tribunals which could require taxpayer
compensation to corporations.
 

 
This process undermines our sovereignty and subverts democratically passed laws including those
dealing with labor, health, and the environment.
 

 
3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
 

 
NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and other free trade agreements have helped drive down the
wages and benefits of American workers and have eroded collective bargaining rights.
 

 
The TPP will make the race to the bottom worse because it forces American workers to compete with
desperate workers in Vietnam where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour.
 

 
4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
 

 
The TPP will allow corporations to challenge any law that would adversely impact their future
profits. Pending claims worth over $14 billion have been filed based on similar language in other
trade agreements. Most of these claims deal with challenges to environmental laws in a number of
countries. The TPP will make matters even worse by giving corporations the right to sue any of the
nations that sign onto the TPP. These lawsuits would be heard in international tribunals bypassing
domestic courts.
 

 
5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
 

 
The TPP would make it easier for countries like Vietnam to export contaminated fish and seafood into
the U.S. The FDA has already prevented hundreds of seafood imports from TPP countries because of
salmonella, e-coli, methyl-mercury and drug residues. But the FDA only inspects 1-2 percent of food
imports and will be overwhelmed by the vast expansion of these imports if the TPP is agreed to.
 

 
6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
 

 
The U.S. has several laws on the books that require the federal government to buy goods and services
that are made in America or mostly made in this country. Under TPP, foreign corporations must be
given equal access to compete for these government contracts with companies that make products in
America. Under TPP, the U.S. could not even prevent companies that have horrible human rights
records from receiving government contracts paid by U.S. taxpayers.
 

 
7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of
drug companies will go up.
 

 
Big pharmaceutical companies are working hard to ensure that the TPP extends the monopolies they
have for prescription drugs by extending their patents (which currently can last 20 years or
more). This would expand the profits of big drug companies, keep drug prices artificially high, and
leave millions of people around the world without access to life saving drugs. Doctors without
Borders stated that “the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for
access to medicines in developing countries.”
 

 
8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
 

 
Under TPP, governments would be barred from imposing “capital controls” that have been
successfully used to avoid financial crises. These controls range from establishing a financial
speculation tax to limiting the massive flows of speculative capital flowing into and out of countries
responsible for the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. In other words, the TPP would expand the
rights and power of the same Wall Street firms that nearly destroyed the world economy just five
years ago and would create the conditions for more financial instability in the future.
 

 
Last year, I co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Harkin to create a Wall Street speculation tax of just 0.03
percent on trades of derivatives, credit default swaps, and large amounts of stock. If TPP were
enacted, such a financial speculation tax may be in violation of this trade agreement.
 

 
9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human
rights.
 

 
The State Department, the U.S. Department of Labor, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty
International have all documented Vietnam’s widespread violations of basic international standards
for human rights. Yet, the TPP would reward Vietnam’s bad behavior by giving it duty free access to
the U.S. market.
 

 
10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.
 

 
Once TPP is agreed to, it has no sunset date and could only be altered by a consensus of all of the countries that
agreed to it. Other countries, like China, could be allowed to join in the future. For example, Canada and
Mexico joined TPP negotiations in 2012 and Japan joined last year.

I trust Bernie to tell the truth to the best of his ability. He is one of the few Senators in Washington who does not allow lobbyists into his office.

 

[still_one]

37. I will reserve my judgement until I see the final agreement.

[DCBob]

28. I think he simply believes this is better than the status quo.

Much better in fact.

[yourout]

29. For me it's simple....by and large Republicans want it and know whats in it.

What was the last time Republicans wanted anything that was good for the 99%ers?

[still_one]

33. That is inane logic. Perhaps if you read the agreement when it is available you can make your own

mind up, instead of using republican like logic, "anything Obama does is bad"

As to your example, the Medicare drug prescription plan was done under bush, and though it could have been better, it was sure better than what they had before, which was nothing. So I have just named one thing that republicans did that was good for the 99%ers?

[yourout]

39. Let me clairify.....What was the last time Republicans did something that Dems did not want that....

was good for the 99%ers but not the 1%ers?

This not the only metric I need to know that TPP is probably a steaming pile of dog shit.

I saw first hand the carnage that NAFTA did to the manufacturing jobs in my area.
Between 40 and 50 percent of my business headed for Mexico and probably 50 percent of the work that went Mexico is now in China.

In one town alone I saw 750 decent paying jobs head to China because Walmart made them do it.

[still_one]

43. Good clarification. However, I do not think all Democrats in Congress are against the TPP. That

doesn't mean it is a good agreement. In addition, China isn't even include in the TPP, because from what I understand, they would accept its terms, which might be a positive.

I do not profess an intimate knowledge of the agreement. I do respect Warren, Sanders, and yes Obama also.

For me I will keep an open mind until I see the final agreement and if the important issues are addressed.

I have no doubt if there are problems in the final agreement, it will be called out loud and clear to the public's attention.

[still_one]

30. This might help. It doesn't really discuss the details of TPP, but it makes very clear that

the full TPP agreement will be made public before the debate and vote on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/business/obama-fast-track-pacific-trade-deal.html?_r=0

When I posted this in GD one of the first responses was, "the link doesn't specify whether the total agreement will be made public or not?"

I then pointed out the following from the article:


" The president would have to notify Congress of the accord’s completion 90 days before he intends to sign it, a delay similar to past requirements. But in a new twist, the full agreement would have to be made public for 60 days before the president gives his final assent and sends it to Congress. Congress could not begin considering it for 30 days after that."

I received no follow-up response from that, but as far as I am concerned it is pretty clear that the "full agreement" will be made public.

Since President Obama took office, he has been criticized on almost everything he has done. Perhaps you don't remember how bad it was during the ACA talks. The GD forum was immersed in bashing the President, accusing him of everything under the book.

There are so many instance of some folks just flying off the handle against the President before the full facts are known.

What the President has accomplished in spite of all the antagonism that has been thrown his way is nothing short of amazing.

That does not mean everything he does is right, but he tries to do the right thing.

Is the TPP the right thing to do? I don't know. It is a complicated trade agreement. There are Democratic opponents of the bill, and from everything I have seen we will get to see the full bill before the debate and vote, contrary to what some claim here.

The vote will be an up or down vote, no amendments or modifications will be allowed. Historically, what I understand, that is the way most international trade agreements are done.

[guillaumeb]

35. But the full agreement will be huge.

Furthermore,
"The vote will be an up or down vote, no amendments or modifications will be allowed. Historically, what I understand, that is the way most international trade agreements are done. "

And WHY are trade agreements done that way? So the public will have no chance to weigh in. There is no need to have such a short time for comments. The only reason for the speed is to NOT allow common citizens to see what is in the deal and possibly organize against it.

Please see my comment up thread.

[still_one]

42. Actually, there will be at least 90 days for the public to weigh in through their representatives,

which is the way our representative government works.

[bornskeptic]

48. How would amending a trade agreement work?

If our Congress could amend it, I would suppose that legislative bodieas in the other eleven countries could amend it too. So we'd end up with twelve different trade agreements, each one only pleasing its own nation, and negotiations would have to start all over again - just as they would ig Congress voted it down. They would just have had a lot more fun and wasted a lot more time and money voting on hundreds of amendments.

[guillaumeb]

50. In a perfect world, with perfect agreements,

there would be no need to amend or discuss. But NAFTA was a disaster for US workers and there is no reason to presume that the TPP will be better.

Both NAFTA and the TPP were and are being written by industry. The ALEC model of industry written legislation has been horrible for workers so why exactly should we trust that the TPP will be any better?

[jeff47]

31. The first thing to remember is the TPP isn't about trade.

We already have plenty of trade with all the TPP countries. Tariffs are statistically insignificant, and there aren't any other large trade barriers that would be lifted by TPP. So clearly the TPP has to be about something else.

The TPP is about capital. The TPP makes it much safer for capital to invest across borders.

Say you decide to invest in a strip mine in another country. The strip mine is dumping toxic sludge in the local water supply. Before the TPP, you could lose your investment if the local government shut down the strip mine. After TPP, you can go to the tribunals it sets up and recoup not only your investment, but the profit you would have made on the investment.

Wanna buy a sweatshop? Now you don't have to worry about the other government shutting it down via new labor laws. Because even if the government does shut it down, you get paid.

So why's Obama so for the TPP? I think it's likely due to the labor protections that have been mentioned, but not leaked. He may see it as uplifting the workers in these other countries by requiring much better labor practices and work conditions.

ETA: I suspect the capital protections are the "give" in order to get the labor protections "take".

[still_one]

34. We won't know for sure until we see the final agreement, which we will see before the debate or vote

[jeff47]

36. You're assuming that a giant agreement can be meaningfully analyzed in a very short time.

Thousands of pages dealing with a lot of complex areas of law and multiple countries is not easy to sift through. 90 days is barely enough to do a reasonable analysis, much less have a decent debate.

[still_one]

40. I believe that there will be folks who will be able to specifically point out in the agreement, pros

or cons, of the issues that are most important, and whether the treaty should be voted for or against.

[jeff47]

46. And I believe in the tooth fairy.

"Belief" does not change reality. Any problems are not going to be under the "How we fuck over American workers" chapter. They're going to be caused by non-obvious routes.

It takes time to work those out. That's why it has taken years to negotiate the agreement. People finding (or creating) non-obvious routes.

[still_one]

47. Regardless, I need to re-evaluate my thoughts on this. I thought it

required 2/3 vote to pass in the Senate, and I have just become aware that it doesn't, so that is problematic for me

[guillaumeb]

38. I wrote this as a response down thread.

My response:
So the TPP is geopolitics in action. All about economic dominance. And yes, NAFTA did cause an increase in trade, but the benefits mainly went to the top 1%. As to the supposed benefits for the US:
"The United States had a small but relatively stable trade deficit with Canada and Mexico(combined) in the 1980s and early 1990s. After NAFTA took effect in 1994, this country developed large and rapidly growing deficits with these trade partners."
Read more: http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/economy/the-costs-and-benefits-of-nafta.html/#ixzz3YGIFeG00


There has been plenty of information out there that industry lobbyists are doing the actual writing of the specifics of the legislation. That concerns me greatly and it should be a concern for everyone. We are told that the specifics must be kept secret, but we are not given a credible reason as to WHY the specifics must be kept secret.
From a Bill Moyers article:
Yet the actual text of the agreement remains under lock and key. That represents a significant break from the Bush administration, which in 2001 published the text of a proposed multinational trade agreement with Latin American nations.
“It is incomprehensible to me that leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP, while at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge of what’s in it,” wrote US Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-VT), in a letter to Froman last month.
http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/06/trans-pacific-partnership-huge-deal-kept-secret/

US citizens and Congress members cannot see the specifics of the legislation but corporate CEOs can see them? See link below:
http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/

[still_one]

41. You quote that Congressional member cannot see specifics of the legislation, but that flies counter

to what Elizabeth Warren has been saying. She has said she has seen the details of the agreement, and I would expect other members of Congress have also.

The final agreement will be available to the public before the debate and vote also.

[still_one]

44. Just an observation. The discussions in this thread are so much more civil than other areas, where

there is so much name calling and accusations, that it detracts from trying to understand exactly the pros and cons of the TPP are.

I am glad we are having this discussion here

[guillaumeb]

45. nice observation

discussion should be civil.

[AuntPatsy]

51. Excellent thread...

[Major Hogwash]

54. President Obama is right on this trade agreement.

One of the things you learn when you are in the military is to trust your leaders, the men (or women) that are the ones directly above you in rank that are the ones giving orders.
You learn to trust their judgment.

They didn't get promoted because they are good looking, won a popularity contest, or just happen to be related to someone higher up in the chain of command.
It isn't a question of it being a cult of personality.
Their education, experience, and intelligence comes into play when they are making decisions.
And their decision-making abilities improve with more experience and more education.

Questioning the President about the TPP, which is not a life and death issue, is just wasted energy.
Caused by anxiety, in my opinion.
Anxiety caused by fear of the unknown, fear of the future.
I am sure the President has taken all of the qualifying aspects of this trade plan into consideration when making his decision to support the TPP.
I trust the President to do the right thing.
This is President Obama, after all, not some other President.

Honestly, I think there are too many people wringing their hands over it, and yet, they don't even know what it is.
It brings to mind that old joke about 9 blind men who were asked to examine an elephant, and then later report their own description of what they thought they were examining.
They gave 9 differing accounts, none of which were correct.
And that is what is sort of going on now, the critics of the TPP are the blind leading the blind.

I trust the President's judgment on this issue.
And that's all there is to it.
I'm not about to start questioning his reasoning, wondering if he has a hidden agenda.
I think he is smart enough to see the end game of this trade agreement.

I trust him as much as I trusted my own mother.

[sheshe2]

55. I like your answer, Major Hogwash.

I for one will not toss all I know about the man, all I trust about him over the hair on fire screamers and a Congressman that only comes here to fund raise.

I don't have time to look for the link I want, have to get to work. In it, it's mentioned that Warren and Brown say they will vote against the bill that allows the public to see what is in TPP, all the while campaigning on making it public. Something reeks here, I am disappointed in my Senator. I will see if I can find it when I get home.

It is so good to see you, Major. You are a Major?

[Major Hogwash]

56. TPP is the whine du jour.

It gives some of the people posting here something to whine about.
And for some, if they didn't have something to whine about . . . they just wouldn't show up here anymore.
Yesterday it was some other thing, today it is the TPP.

It doesn't make sense for a lot of the DU members who complain about the TPP trade agreement -- something they know little to nothing about -- but that is the state of DU now.
Many of the ones complaining about TPP are the same ones who whined incessantly about the XL pipeline, warning everyone that the sun would go out and we would all have to learn how to live underground.

After the TPP passes, it won't be the catastrophic, apocalyptic, black hole-inducing trade agreement they have been wasting all of their time saying it is.

[sheshe2]

57. There is always something on the menu at DU, Major.

Just take a look at the whine list.

Coming home tonight and reading the pile on, it makes me sad. No person that claims to have voted for Obama twice would say these things. Obama is going to destroy the middle class and America as a whole. He is going to destroy the environment with TPP as well. Then all the Wall Street owns him crap!

After the TPP passes, it won't be the catastrophic, apocalyptic, black hole-inducing trade agreement they have been wasting all of their time saying it is.

I know you are right, doesn't make it any easier to listen to.


This was the link I was talking about. Freshwest told me not to post it because I will be ripped to shreds. Ya well, I am in the mood. May add it to my "Bucket List"

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2015/4/27/obama-strikes-back-warren-stumbles-trade

Lol~ you never answer my questions. That's okay, ya still make me laugh.

[Major Hogwash]

58. Back in the day, we used to say DU's motto should be . . .

"We shall serve no whine before it's time."

Because there were so many whiners whining here, about anything and everything.
I ignore most of the most blatant baiting threads, or at least I try to.
But, I think there are even more baiting threads started here now than there were back in 2003.

I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong, and DU always had that many baiting threads here back then.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "you never answer my questions".
I answer all of your questions.

Are you referring to your question about me being a major?
Of course I'm not a major now, I've been out of the military for several years.
But, I'm sure some consider me a major pain in the ass for supporting President Obama!

[sheshe2]

59. Roflol~

Yup... that was the question!

Are you referring to your question about me being a major?
Of course I'm not a major now, I've been out of the military for several years.
But, I'm sure some consider me a major pain in the ass for supporting President Obama!

My dad, he was the youngest captain on a minesweeper. WWII. I have his scrapbook now. Cool pics! Navy!

From your age, sadly it was Vietnam.

I love this ~

I'm sure some consider me a major pain in the ass for supporting President Obama!

Ha! I only majored in fine art in college.

Yet I too am considered a major pain in the ass for supporting Obama. I so love it!

He is going down in history as the best of the best.

Whiners going to whine~ I have to listen to them>

WaitWhut?

[Major Hogwash]

61. I'm not quite that old.

I joined the Army 40 years ago this summer on July 14, 1975, after the Vietnam War was over.

But I grew up around a lot of veterans.
My dad was a WWII veteran who served in the Army in the Pacific, in the Philippines.
One of my uncles joined the Air Force right after WWII and he made a career out of it, serving for over 25 years.
He did a tour in Korea during the Korean War and one in Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
And 2 of my cousins were also Vietnam veterans, one served in the Army and the other one in the Marine Corps.
Another cousin of mine served in the Army during the Vietnam war, but he wasn't shipped to Vietnam.

My older brother was scared to death about being drafted, and being sent over to Vietnam, after he graduated from high school.
You'd have thought he had won a huge lottery prize the way he was so happy after he got a high number in the draft that year.

I thought about going to college to get a degree in fine art.
For about 5 whole minutes.
I just couldn't see myself as an artist.
I decided that was too high-browed stuff for someone like me since I grew up reading MAD magazine and laughing my ass off at the Don Martin cartoons in those magazines.
I wouldn't know fine art if a picture painted by Picasso fell off the wall and hit me on the head.

[Hekate]

60. I find it very confusing, frankly. Obama clearly believes what he's saying, & I understand ...

...his motivation. I think.

And I agree with what I think his motivation is: the U.S. has to get the upper hand on Pacific-Asian trade because if we don't the Chinese will. They already are. The Chinese are not waiting around for the dysfunctional US Congress to get its shit together. They are behaving most aggressively in the Pacific -- almost as if they are trying to provoke war, because of the way they are pushing territorial boundaries and establishing hegemony among the Pacific islands. How many citizens and politicians in the U.S. are even aware of this, and if they are, do they even care or perceive it as a threat? China is a threat, take my word for it.

If I understand correctly, there are a dozen nations involved in negotiations. Do we want them for partners or don't we? Do we want them looking to us to be the leader, or do we want to cede that position to China? Do we want to have a say in environmental regulations or don't we? We already know the environment means a lot to Obama, but he is balked continuously by Congress. What you may not remember is that at an international environmental conference early in Obama's administration, the Chinese delegation went out of its way to humiliate and exclude the US delegation. Do we want to have a say in formulating business regulations as regards workers themselves?

We won't have a say unless we move forward with something.

TPP does not have to be like NAFTA -- clearly there must be lessons learned from that experience. Yet the people who object to TPP conflate it with NAFTA, especially here. But an absolutely enormous amount of the objections are based on conjecture and supposition.

In addition, there are a number of public figures whom I respect who are coming out against the proposed TPP quite strongly. Their stated opinions are based on something other than what Obama is telling us. Because I respect them, I don't think they are lying, any more than I think Obama himself is lying or attempting to mislead us. So I have to ask: where are these various folks getting the info that is upsetting them so much? And what do they propose as an alternative? And which part is accurate?

I do understand why President Obama is getting frustrated with the attacks on his baby coming from people he thought were his allies, even his friends. But I myself am pretty confused.

[steve2470]

62. good post

It would be great if President Obama came to DU and/or Reddit and did a AskMeAnything thread on the TPP. He probably could not answer some questions due to his agreements with our trading partners, but the rest he could. I really don't think he's lying to us. He simply has a truly global perspective that we MUST have an agreement to preserve our place in the world, and that TPP is better than nothing at all.

Global capitalism seeks maximum profits, which means lowest possible legal (and in some cases illegal) wages for workers. President Obama can't stop that process. He and we the American people can only put up rational safeguards for our workers.

[Hekate]

63. Thanks. "Rational" and "global perspective" are qualities I have long ascribed to Obama...

If I had my druthers I would very much like to clean up U.S. manufacturing practices abroad. Two examples: India's (or was that Bangladesh?) version of The Triangle Fire, where American clothing companies turned a blind eye to sweatshop conditions in a locally-owned building; and the deaths of thousands of American pets due to tainted pet food from China sold under well-known American brand names.

My dearest wish is to have a robust system of industry-funded but American government hired inspectors, and again I have an example: the rabbi posted in Hong Kong. One excuse used by American food and drug manufacturers is that they can't know everything that goes on in the supply chain because of language, customs, laws, an incredibly complex web of small suppliers who feed into the bigger ones. The rabbi accepts no excuses because he is there to certify products as kosher on behalf of the American Jewish community, and as far as he and they are concerned they are answering to a higher law. He will literally travel thousands of miles to inspect and interview suppliers, and if he is not satisfied, the manufacturers who use their product don't get certified kosher. If one highly motivated rabbi can do this, so can everybody else, and they should.

This has been the best thread ever at DU on the subject of the TPP. It's sad that the only place to have it is in the BOG, but I am really happy to have it at all . Kudos to the OP!

[steve2470]

64. I just watched the entire interview on yahoo.com with the President

I thought he addressed the major points very well. He seems absolutely convinced that this is the best path forward.

We have to trust someone's expert judgment in this matter, unless we happen to be a true expert ourselves. I'll trust President Obama
on this one. He knows the pending agreement as well as anyone (and better in the vast majority of cases).

[BlancheSplanchnik]

65. I appreciate this thread...

Thanks for all the wisdom, DU friends.

I have no understanding of the subject...it's especially confusing to see negative opinions from so many experts whom I ALSO trust. (as I trust PBO)