...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.

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.

many throw around the "wall street" insults.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

And he trusts their judgment.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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. . .

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Much better in fact.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

which is the way our representative government works.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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

"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.

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

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/

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.

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

discussion should be civil.

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.

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?

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.

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!

"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!

Yup... that was the question!

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.

...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.

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.

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!

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).

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)