The point of TPP is to boost US exports. That's why PBO is behind it.

[ucrdem]

Exporting what, you ask? Well, how about "flexible computer chips that can be woven into everything from the gears in a helicopter to the fabric in your shirt"? It's probably true that we stopped making TVs in the US a while back, but that train left the station long before Obama entered the picture. So here's his TPP agenda in a nutshell, from a speech last December 11:

Our businesses have added almost 11 million jobs over the past 57 months. This year our economy has already created more jobs [than] in any year since the 1990s, with still a month to go. All told, since 2010, we've created more jobs here in the United States than Japan, Europe, and all advanced nations combined.

And one of the reasons that we've been able to create so many jobs here in the United States is because our exports have been strong. Last year our businesses sold a record $2.3 trillion of Made in America goods and services. And these exports support more than 11 million American jobs -- typically, by the way, jobs that pay higher wages.

{snip}

I've said before I will go anywhere around the world to go to bat for American companies and American workers. We're going to keep on pushing trade agreements that benefit American companies and American workers and ensure that we've got a fair and even playing field, particularly in the fastest-growing markets.

{snip}

We're also announcing -- because manufacturing has been a real bright spot in our growing economy -- some additional measures to boost manufacturing here in the United States so we can sell more manufacturing goods overseas. We're announcing today more than $290 million in new investments to launch two additional high-tech manufacturing hubs. One is going to be focusing on flexible computer chips that can be woven into everything from the gears in a helicopter to the fabric in your shirt. Another is going to focus on advance sensors that can dramatically cut energy costs for our factories.

So far, we have launched eight of these hubs, and we intend to get 16 done, so we're more than half of the way there. And they’re helping us to compete for the next generation of manufacturing.

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/12/20141211311946.html#ixzz3QMeoR4Ur

So if we're going to complain that Obama hasn't created enough good jobs, he's still creating them, and TPP is part of the mix.

[Scootaloo]

1. Might want to have a look at Think's thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159079

[ucrdem]

4. I noticed the writer admits that he is completely uninformed.

"we have still not received any information. "

That's refreshing.

[think]

7. The AFLCIO has not received any information they requested. WaPo has their information for the story

Two different things.

The AFLCIO was agreeing about the WaPo rating of 4 Pinocchios while also mentioning the information they have been requesting for four years from the administration has not been given to them.....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/30/the-obama-administrations-illusionary-job-gains-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

[ucrdem]

9. Evidently the writer of your post is unaware of the internet

and the State Dept website which currently hosts 805 documents and transcripts pertaining to TPP including the one I just posted. That's one thing. The WaPo article is full of sh-t. That's another thing.

[think]

14. WaPo quoted the author of the research the jobs claim is made on.

How is that in anyway "full of shit"?

And the AFLCIO has been ignored by the administration.

What happened to candidate Obama who wanted to renegotiate NAFTA and have the unions present for those negotiations?

[ucrdem]

16. Petri says job growth would oustrip job loss

and WaPo claims he says the net job gain would be zero. That's why WaPo is full of shit -- they misrepresent their own evidence.

[Andy823]

146. Exactly.

I have seen other post linking to the State Dept website, but for some reason the same old Obama bashers refuse to go their and read it. They would rather grip that it's all "top secret", except when they find some "leak" put out by who knows who, that they clamp on to because it trashes president Obama, which is all they really want to do anyway, bash, trash, bash and trash the president day in and day outl

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Does the AFLCIO traditionally have a right to information from the Fed. Gov't while still in

very secret negotiations? Or do only Congressmen and women - after passing security and clearance measures and such - have access to them?

[think]

15. Clearly candidate Obama felt so since he stated he would invite the AFLCIO to renegotiate NAFTA /nt

[BlueCaliDem]

39. Well, that was *before* he understood what being president would be like. Then, when he entered the

White House, he got a reality check.

[think]

41. He learned that only corporate big wigs get to make US trade policy? /nt

[BlueCaliDem]

44. Oh brother. Um...no. eom

[think]

49. Well what did he learn that would make him decide to exclude labor from the discussion?

Especially after making statements at an AFLCIO debate where he said labor deserved to be involved....

[BlueCaliDem]

56. Swiftboating. It's no secret that labor is against anything that they perceive to be NAFTA-esque.

Already, they're coming out condemning the TPP without even knowing the details, yet now you expect this president to trust them with sensitive information when they're still negotiating? Get real.

[JDPriestly]

60. And why do you suppose that labor is against anythng NAFTA-esque.

Could it be because NAFTA meant the loss of so many jobs and sucked out the savings and jobs and accounts of so many working people?

Trade agreements have never helped American labor. Never. Our huge, out of proportion negative balance of payments is proof that trade agreements do not help America and especially do not help American labor.

No to the TPP. A thousand times no to the TPP.

[BlueCaliDem]

72. I'm not saying it's a BAD thing. I'm just pointing out their prejudice.

And how can you say "no to TPP" if negotiations haven't even ended yet and the details aren't agreed to yet? Better not to pre-judge until we have the facts, right?

[think]

61. A secret trade document that the largest corporations helped write and you blame labor

for swift boating.

I trust labor more than Monsanto and Halliburton......

The Biggest Threat to Free Speech and Intellectual Property That You’ve Never Heard Of
By Sandra Fulton, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 3:22pm / 08/29/2012

~Snip~

Prominent senators aren’t the only ones being kept in the dark. Consumer and advocacy groups are also totally shut out of the negotiations, while certain interested corporations have a preferred seat at the table. As Senator Wyden further explained:

"The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations – like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America – are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement"....

~Snip~

Full article:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-technology-and-liberty-national-security/biggest-threat-free-speech-and

[BlueCaliDem]

71. I trust this president more than Labor. Sorry, but I haven't really had good experiences with Labor.

I don't trust the motives of whining congress members, either, but I distrust Corporations even more.

That said, the TPP drafts are available to members of Congress with preclearance to peruse. They choose, instead, to mitch and moan.

That said, as msanthrope has pointed out, every single member of Congress to the TPP draft. Every single one of them.

"A few, like Grayson and Sanders have bemoaned the fact that they don't sit on the relevant committees, and therefore, their staff can't have access, and they can't distribute copies. But nothing prevents them from reading it themselves." Could this moaning and groaning by Congress people be nothing but a case of lazy Congress members?

Btw, do you know why the president wanted to fast-track the TPP?

[think]

79. 151 Democratic representatives from the house is alot of congress people to call out

Especially when it means you are siding with almost every one of the Republican congress people.....

[BlueCaliDem]

89. You're entitled to your opinion. Anyway, do you know what the president wanted to fast-track

the TPP?

[neverforget]

103. That bastion of conservative and libertarian ideology, the US Chamber

of Commerce loves the TPP too. I'll side with labor thanks. I know labor is looking out for me while the Chamber is looking out for corporations.

[LondonReign2]

105. Oh, hey, good, Union bashing from suppossed Democrats

Nice.

[Skittles]

54. how is that wrong exactly?

you're it's NOT pro-corporation?

[Cha]

2. Mahalo ucr

[ucrdem]

5. Thanks, Cha!

Well, that makes two of us anyway, lol!

[Cha]

6. The PResident is after real Jobs for Americans.. we'll see what else he likes about this when

more comes out.

[ucrdem]

10. I think you are 110% right on the money.

NAFTA may or may not have been a dirty deal, but this is not NAFTA. It's too bad the swiftboaters got the jump on this one but I guess that's their job, sigh.

[Cha]

17. KICK!

[think]

42. Were the 151 Democratic congress persons who raised their concerns "swiftboaters"?

http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1455:delauro-miller-lead-151-house-dems-telling-president-they-will-not-support-outdated-fast-track-for-trans-pacific-partnership&Itemid=21

[BlueCaliDem]

50. Have Democrats in Congress ever really gotten President Obama's back in the past six years?

By the way, that link only refers to concerns regarding fast-tracking the TPP, not addressing the final TPP bill. There IS a difference.

[think]

58. Dismissing the concerns of 151 Democratic congress persons is fairly egregious

but hey, Mitch McConnell and ALL the Republicans have Obama's back on this one.

Warrens, Sanders, Grayson and other have also expressed grave concerns. When Elizabeth Warren states she was told to keep quiet as the American people would be opposed to the TPP if they knew what's in it; I tend to feel she has legitimate concerns....

[BlueCaliDem]

87. Not dismissing those concerns. I'm questioning them. Fast-tracking TPP would mean that Republicans,

so hell-bent on obstructing everything this president does, would not be able to add tons of amendments to it.

Can I have a link where Senator Warren states that she's expressed concerns about what she's read in the TPP drafts? Because you've shown a penchant of conflating two different things - like stating that members of Congress are against TPP when they were clearly against having President Obama stop Republicans from adding a ton of amendments to the TPP draft - I'd like to make sure you're not conflating two different things she's said.

[madokie]

93. The link went to bed I guess

We have a lot of second guessing, making it up from whole cloth keyboard quarterbacks here on this board if you haven't already noticed that

Of all the people involved here, in congress or elsewhere I Trust this President more than any or all of them

[Oilwellian]

112. Why would Republicans add tons of amendments

when the TPP is a Republican wet dream, written BY republicans? I think it's more like DEMOCRATS would add tons of amendments that Obama and his republicans friends wouldn't like.

[think]

128. It is Democrats in congress complaining about Fast Track and NOT Republicans.

And neither the AFLCIO nor House Dems are against trade agreements in general. It is the fact that 500 huge corporations have access to and helped create the trade agreement without any input from House Democrats, unions, or environmental groups.

Republicans like Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell are itching to get the TPP passed and have never complained about Fast Tracking it because their corporate sponsors already got to write it.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/228830-mcconnell-says-obama-born-again-on-trade-agenda

Republicans like the TPP and don't care if it is is Fast Tracked.


As for Warren's statements in regard to the TPP and the public point of view based on transparency:

"I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Administration's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. I believe in transparency and democracy and I think the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should too."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/12035523456/senator-warren-if-tpp-transparency-would-lead-to-public-opposition-then-policy-is-wrong.shtml

[sheshe2]

66. Make that 3.

I have no intention of listening to the hair on fire doom and gloom brigade. They sure have been wrong before.

I will wait for facts not fiction.

Thanks urc~

[ucrdem]

84. Thanks sheshe!

[sheshe2]

88. You are welcome urc....

Lol~ lately I have held my breath and counted to three before I checked a response. Sometimes it's so Ya never know who is at the end of that yellow response light.



luv ya~

[madokie]

94. Make it 4

[ucrdem]

3. whoops

wrong place

[BlueCaliDem]

8. Thanks for posting this! I was looking for it in order to try and understand why Pres. Obama is

pushing the TPP so hard against the complaints of anti-TPPers from the Left. I have already said that I'll reserve judgment until I know the facts, rather than embrace baseless rumor and gossip, with the caveat that I believe President Obama won't do anything to cause us undue harm because he never has. In fact, everything he's done has benefited the American people.

The question then became, why would he suddenly push for a pact that would harm the American worker? That just didn't make sense to me, so I decided not to wade into any discussion about the evils of TPP until I know more.

However, during the SOTU, I did remember him mentioning the TPP and why it was important to U.S. exports and American jobs - which is totally opposite of what his critics are complaining about.

Thanks for posting this information, ucrdem. It's very helpful.

[ucrdem]

11. Thanks, BCD!

There's a lot to read there but from what I've seen so far the point of this deal is to make things better for workers and for the environment, not worse. Of course, it's also a nut-and-bolts trade agreement with penalties for bootlegged consumer goods, and I guess that's a problem for some, but I doubt if any trade deal can shut down bootleggers for very long.

[freshwest]

21. But the good stuff was just TheObamaDeception©. TheAnti-Christ© always does that.

It's a Kenyan or an extraterrestrial thing, you wouldn't understand.

Do I need a icon?

Stumbled on some amazing BS from YouTube University tonight... Now I need to get my brain untwisted.

Yup, Obama is TheEvilOne©!

[BlueCaliDem]

40. Or...they just say, "Don't believe him!" or "Sales pitch! I'm not buying it", forgetting, of course,

that President Obama has yet to do anything that would harm the American worker or the average American. In fact, everything he's ever done was to benefit us. So I don't understand this perpetual distrust of this president when he doesn't deserve it. Maybe it's their bias against him that's keeping them in perpetual pouting-mode.

[madokie]

95. Even here I think a lot of it is

due to the color of his skin. It started shortly after he was elected when they started calling him a Kenyan, the anti-christ etc and its just snowballed since.
But then again I was raised to be color blind so maybe I just don't see it but my gut is rarely wrong and it tells me to hang in there with this man and listen to HIS words not the shit coming from the jackasses who would do him harm. Fuck the lot of them

The man spent 6 years trying to change the tone in Washington to no avail, finally gave up and will spend the last two doing as he indicated he would from the start. No blame for anything can be lain at his feet, none, nada, zilch

Oh, yes, I have a picture of My President proudly displayed where anyone who comes in my front door can see it first thing. I want them to know where I stand first rattle out of the box.

[BlueCaliDem]

113. I didn't want to see it that way, but when I read some posts here and on other

so-called liberal and progressive blogs, I have to finally accept that racism is ingrained in the fabric of American society and it will never be removed from it...even for one of America's best presidents in my lifetime.

These people can forgive the most glaring mistakes made by another politician - one who is White - while, without blinking, condemn this first Black president in our history for the smallest thing, even for things he hasn't even done.

It's as if they actually go looking for things to mitch and moan about just to keep believing that this Black man is unfit as a leader. And despite their loud cries to the contrary, their innate racism showed in the 2012 election when President Obama gained voters in every other demographic except the White demographic that voted for an inept elitist. President Obama lost the White vote by a whopping 20%. In order to understand how bad that is, consider that Dukakis lost the White vote by 19%. President Obama only won re-election and 51% of the popular vote, thanks to minorities, otherwise, we would have had a President Romney today.

You can't tell me that that had nothing to do with the color of his skin.

[madokie]

115. I've learned that many of the people who I thought were alright

turned out to be racist mo'fo's. It blew me away when I realized that many if not most of the people I know turned out to be racist pieces of shit. Most of them had hidden their racism from me pretty good up to the time that President Obama walked into the White House.
I love this President like he was my own brother

[BlueCaliDem]

118. I've been disillusioned by many Liberals and Progressives who I thought were color blind, but

who, by their posts and words, proved they were anything but (no matter how loudly they try and deny it). That was an eye-opener!

I've always understood that conservatives were innately racist and saw everything through that prism. That had always been a given. But I never thought that Liberals and Progressives were, too. I had always operated under the false notion that Liberals and Progressives had accepted and possessed an open mind which would prevent them from being racist and xenophobic. But too many, here and elsewhere, quickly disabused me of that notion when President Obama was elected in 2008, and instead of judging the man by the content of his character, they judged him by the color of his skin - and they haven't stopped since. Their petty gripes - gripes I'm certain they'd easily forgive others of a different hue - told me as much. More than once they had my jaw fall open in astonishment.

The first Liberal who had me rocking on my heels was FireDogLake founder, Jane Hamsher. I had NO idea that someone who projected herself to be so liberal could even utter being allied with the likes of Teabagger Palin, and yet that's exactly what she did as she immediately went on the attack of President Obama from the moment he was inaugurated. Well, all I can say is, she and others have helped open my eyes. It was a painful experience, though.

I love this president, too. I've seen how hard he's been working despite the hate he gets. This man is incredible and I'm honored to have him as my president. It doesn't mean I won't be upset when he makes choices that I believe are wrong, and I will be critical of him when I feel he deserves it - like not pushing Congressional Democrats to include at least a public option in the health care reform bill or going overboard at deporting undocumented people - but I will always try and give him the benefit of the doubt...just as I had done for Presidents Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush.

[Scuba]

101. "... President Obama has yet to do anything that would harm the American worker ..."

None so blind as those who will not see ....


http://www.epi.org/blog/korea-trade-deal-resulted-growing-trade/

This Saturday is the second anniversary of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), which took effect on March 15, 2012. President Obama said at the time that KORUS would increase US goods exports by $10 to $11 billion, supporting 70,000 American jobs from increased exports alone. Things are not turning out as predicted.

In first two years after KORUS took effect, U.S. domestic exports to Korea fell (decreased) by $3.1 billion, a decline of 7.5%, as shown in the figure below. Imports from Korea increased $5.6 billion, an increase of 9.8%. Although rising exports could, in theory, support more U.S. jobs, the decline in US exports to Korea has actually cost American jobs in the past two years. Worse yet, the rapid growth of Korean imports has eliminated even more U.S. jobs. Overall, the U.S. trade deficit with Korea has increased $8.7 billion, or 59.6%, costing nearly 60,000 U.S. jobs. Most of the nearly 60,000 jobs lost were in manufacturing.

[BlueCaliDem]

111. Yep. Hence the negative job growth since 2012 - Oh wait!

Again, President Obama has yet to do anything that would harm the American worker.

None so blind as those filled with irrational hate...

[Scuba]

116. I have no hate for the President, but I don't figure the loss of 60,000 manufacturing jobs ...

... is offset by the gain of 70,000 burger-flipping jobs.

Maybe you do, but I don't.

[BlueCaliDem]

121. That's not how your posts come across, Scuba. Rarely do I see you praise the president

for the good work he's done but blame him for every ill this country suffers under Republican (non)governance. The posts I've read of yours are always critical of the president while completely ignoring the role the irrational obstructionist Republicans in Congress play in all of this. That makes you come across as having, maybe not hatred, but a DEEP dislike of this president that's skewing your judgment.

Those 60,000 manufacturing jobs were lost because of decisions made by businesses, not the president. I don't know if you were paying attention, but I distinctly remember President Obama and Democrats fighting to get bills through that would penalize businesses from sending jobs out of the country, but those bills were filibustered and tabled by REPUBLICANS. Instead of laying the blame on them - where it belongs - you and many others on DU turn and blame the president as if he has the ultimate say and any control in boardroom decision making.

As long as they're allowed and can do so with impunity, Corporate America will continue to send jobs overseas in order to expand their bottom-line. President Obama did everything he could to get Republicans to help pass bills to stop it and to bring money back into this country, but I'm certain you remember that they're the Party of NO and he was blocked each and every time.

As an aside, California is doing very well under Democratic control without Republican filibustering, thanks, in part, to the Stimulus. In January 2014, California's unemployment rate dropped from a whopping 12.4% when Jerry Brown took over to 8.2%. By December 2014, our unemployment rate dropped to 7.2% with a projected surplus of $4.2 billion. Can you imagine what President Obama could've accomplished for this country had Republicans not blocked him and his American Jobs Bill had passed?

[Scuba]

135. You must have missed a lot of my posts.

[Jamaal510]

24. You said

pretty much what I was about to say. Whenever I hear Ed Shultz discuss the TPP, for instance, it seems odd to me that Pres. O would advocate for something that would ultimately clash with the interests of American workers and much of his base. I don't think O is an idiot, and I have seen Big Ed get things wrong in the past, so I've likewise been reserving judgment until I find out more about the TPP and O's motive for pushing it.

[BlueCaliDem]

47. My thoughts exactly. I love Ed Schultz, but he's been wrong many times before compared to President

Obama, so I'll take the president's word over that of Ed Schultz any day...not to negate, of course, all the good that Schultz is fighting for, for the American worker.

[Recursion]

12. That and to push up wages in Vietnam and Honduras

And, of course, as always to sell soybeans (some posters seem to say that sarcastically. I'm not sure why -- ag has always had a dominant voice in US trade positions, probably too dominant. We do need to renegotiate NAFTA, but mostly to make it less unfair to Mexican farmers.)

[ucrdem]

18. Thanks for that Recursion . . .

I saw your NAFTA thread awhile back and found it very interesting. The thing about NAFTA is that offshoring started long before Bill Clinton came along and would have continued briskly with or without it. The same goes for TPP. That's not really something that can be pinned on either of these deals although the USG does seem to have assisted from at least the 50s. But blaming Obama for 60 years offshoring is ridiculous.

[think]

46. Obama claimed in 2008 that NAFTA cost America 1 million jobs. Was he wrong?

Obama Knocks Clinton, But Wouldn't Ax NAFTA
LORAIN, Ohio, Feb. 24, 2008
By JAKE TAPPER

~Snip~

Said Obama, "One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."..

~Snip~

Full article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4336481

[BlueCaliDem]

43. And rice. The U.S. has the BEST rice around.

Unlike China that has NO non-GMO rice, the United States' rice crops are excellent and beloved by manufacturers who are in the business of making gluten-free products that's becoming more and more popular.

Rice production is important to the economy of the United States, too. Of the country's row crop farms, rice farms are the most capital-intensive, and have the highest national land rental rate average.

[JDPriestly]

67. Rice growing requires water.

California and Texas are two of the rice-growing states. Texas and California are prone to droughts.

Good luck with rice exports if we don't get more water in California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_the_United_States

[nationalize the fed]

75. --->"Unlike China that has NO non-GMO rice"<---Source Please

Are you seriously suggesting that the US should sell rice to China?

China pulls plug on genetically modified rice and corn
Dennis Nomlile August 20, 2014 Sciencemag.org

China’s Ministry of Agriculture has decided not to renew biosafety certificates that allowed research groups to grow genetically modified (GM) rice and corn. The permits, to grow two varieties of GM rice and one transgenic corn strain, expired on 17 August. The reasoning behind the move is not clear, and it has raised questions about the future of related research in China...

...Others believe agricultural economics also influenced the decision. China has nearly reached self-sufficiency in producing rice using conventional varieties, so the ministry has decided there is no need to commercialize Bt rice in the near future, says Huang Jikun, director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy. He says that with commercialization off the table, there was no point in renewing the certifications. Huang says "rising public concerns [about the] safety of GM rice" likely also played a role.

Whatever the reason, the decision marks an abrupt change in fortunes for transgenic rice in China. Five years ago, "China was widely expected to soon put GM rice on the country’s dining tables," wrote Cao Cong, a China policy expert at University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, in a post on The Conversation, an Australian website. The Bt rice project "is now to all intents and purposes dead and buried," he wrote, blaming an "anti-GM movement whose power and influence are more than matched by its fervour and sheer, undiluted paranoia."...
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2014/08/china-pulls-plug-genetically-modified-rice-and-corn

[BlueCaliDem]

91. No. No suggesting that at all...seriously or just for shits and giggles. I'm pointing out that

unlike the U.S., China has garnered a reputation with health-conscious consumers and dedicated manufacturers of GMO-free products of selling low-quality rice and rice powder. My daughter works for a dedicated gluten-free, GMO-free manufacturer of pastas and products, and since she's head of marketing and sales, she's intricately involved with production of their products from the ingredients up. They DO NOT buy their rice flour from China even though it's cheaper than American rice flour. Their customers - Whole Foods, Kraft, General Mills who had just bought up Annie's Pastas - refuse to buy their rice-based products from companies that use Chinese rice-flour.

[JDPriestly]

63. First, before any new trade agreements, we have to get our balance of payments numbers under

control. They are awful. See my post elsewhere on this thread.

Joseph Stiglitz makes some suggestions that sound to me about changing our tax code.

Bill Moyers summarizes them here.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/30/seven-key-takeaways-from-joseph-stiglitz%E2%80%99s-tax-plan-for-growth-and-equality/

Good ideas. Another trade deal will hurt American workers. We should not go that route until we make changes at home that insure that the very wealthy will bear their burden on the economic losses that accompany these trade deals.

So far, the middle class in America has lost out with every trade deal, every move to increase our international trade. That trend has to end.

Big money gains from these deals. Ordinary people suffer. That is why I cannot support more trade deals. The history is there. It is undeniable. We don't need links to prove it. We just need to look at the changes on our Main Streets. We just need to look at the poor quality of goods, the utter junk that Americans are finding in their department stores.

I remember buying decent clothes from our department stores for decent prices back in the late 1980s. Now, you can't get well made clothing unless you pay a fortune. Our appliances don't last like they used to. We are sold junk. It is not good for us. It is not good for our pocket books. It is not good for our environment.

American workmanship was great. We had high standards for the products we produced. We can still buy pretty good electronic goods, but the rest of what we buy is cheaply made and not worth what we pay for it.

I oppose the free trade business. It's hurting America.

[susanna]

80. Yes. Wonderfully stated. n/t

[rusty fender]

129. But Stiglitz and Moyers hate Obama

so nothing they say can be true!

[Nay]

137. Thank you, JD. We lose out every minute that we make deals with overseas

suppliers that manufacture absolute CRAP that shouldn't even be given to the US, much less sold here.

As you note, clothing in the average dept store is poorly-made trash. When I worked, I would order pencils for the office -- you'd think any mfg would be able to make a decent pencil, right? Wrong. From certain suppliers, I received pencils whose -- and I am NOT kidding -- ERASERS DID NOT ERASE. That's right, they HAD erasers, but the material used for the eraser did not erase anything. It was a block of plastic that simply smeared whatever you were trying to erase! IOW, we are getting fake pencils! How on earth is it that such a fake product can even be sold here???

These are the results of those great trade deals. We lose the jobs, we get shit for products, and even when we try to buy American or Canadian or any first world stuff, we find they can't compete with the cheap, cheating bastards producing fake trash!

[fadedrose]

19. Thanks for posting

Didn't know any of that stuff, but I do know instinctively that Obama would not hurt our country and we all should have known that.

He is no phony. Funny thing is, he would not hurt another country to help us, and whatever we sell them is going to be good or he'll know the reason why.

He's for everybody. Gee I love him.

[ucrdem]

20. Exactly, I think he's out to get the best deal he can get for US workers.

Mutlitnationals are going to keep cleaning up with or without TPP, so why not get the best deal he can? Makes sense to me. Sometimes I think he's also given up getting his message out because no matter what he says the haters hear the same insanely evil Snidely Whiplash speech every time.

[fadedrose]

117. Not as many haters as there were

When this all started, I was all upset about it. Sent an email to the WH and told the President (his email reader) that I was concerned about all the negativity concerning TPP.

I got a reply (maybe he didn't write it, but it has his touch) that didn't tell me details, but was comforting. It's kinda long, but oh well, here goes:

The White House, Washington


Dear Martha:

Thank you for writing. Trade and investment are critical parts of my strategy to create jobs, spur growth, and strengthen the middle class. My Administration is pursuing a global trade agenda to place our businesses, workers, and consumers at the center of the 21st‑century economy, and to shape the trade landscape so we promote both our interests and our values.

We are opening markets and leveling the playing field for Americans by pursuing and negotiating a series of ambitious trade agreements. In the Asia‑Pacific region, the Trans‑Pacific Partnership will knock down barriers to American exports while raising labor and environmental standards in the fastest‑growing region in the world. Elsewhere, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will strengthen our economic partnership with the European Union by further reducing tariffs and regulatory barriers while maintaining high environmental, consumer, and health standards. Together, these agreements will foster free trade with two‑thirds of the global economy and safeguard workers’ rights and the environment.

At the same time, my Administration has redoubled our efforts to enforce existing trade agreements. Vigilant monitoring and enforcement of our current trade agreements are essential to protecting our trade rights, which is why we’ve taken action to ensure our partners abide by their commitments. We have also fought hard to resolve unwarranted barriers to American agricultural, manufacturing, and services exports, and we’re creating additional opportunities for Americans through our ongoing negotiations on services, information technology, and environmental goods at the World Trade Organization. Our work has produced real results, making it easier for businesses to export goods and services and to reach consumers living outside our borders.

With a highly educated workforce, an entrepreneurial culture, a strong rule of law, and abundant sources of affordable, cleaner energy, the United States has the potential to be the production platform of choice. My Administration is striving to ensure America is the place where businesses want to locate and hire, and goods stamped “Made in the U.S.A.” are the products of choice in the global marketplace. We will continue these efforts because we know our workers and businesses are the most productive in the world.

Again, I appreciate your message. I am confident we can support job growth at home and boost exports while promoting our values and raising standards around the globe.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama



Visit WhiteHouse.gov

[moondust]

22. What exactly is a "US export"?

Is an iPhone made in China and sold in China considered a "US export"?

Is a copy of Microsoft Windows that is partly or wholly made in India and sold in Canada considered a "US export"?

If the answer is yes, is that because those companies are based in the US and traded on US stock markets so the main beneficiaries of their business activity are US stockholders? In other words, is a "US export" anything that mainly benefits Wall Street/US stockholders?

Or perhaps a lot of creative accounting and messaging in a globalized economy?

[ucrdem]

23. From what I've read it's pharmaceuticals, instruments, media,

and per Recursion's post above soybeans, i.e. agricultural products, which are still king in states like California. The intellectual property agreement is a big part of the deal as it covers software and entertainment and evidently it's been hanging things up.

[moondust]

25. As for soybeans,

I'm not aware of any serious current impediments to selling soybeans or other crops in Asia where there is a big market, though I don't really follow it. I do know that Chinese trade representatives sometimes visit U.S. farm states to cut deals. I'm not sure how a trade agreement would improve things. Plus farming, forestry, and fishing jobs combined only make up 0.7% of the U.S. labor force (as of 2009).

It's pretty hard to know the specifics when it's all done behind closed doors. At least the good ol' boys cutting secret deals in the back room will have more access to Cuban cigars now.

[freshwest]

149. How the auto jobs and manufacturing Obama saved... I remember when American cars were the standard.

And sold around the world.

Those are REAL jobs, GOOD PAYING jobs, UNION jobs. With all the hype around here it's as if those AMERICAN WORKERS don't even exist anymore.

But they do, and that is because Obama fought like hell despite the media hype and obstruction by the GOP who were actually acting as servants to foreign auto makers who wanted to keep their lower pay, non-union, no profits going to Americans in their states, to foster low wages, non-union jobs, etc.

Every single time Obama has made statements that were for Americans and our values and laws, they have been used against Americans. Even in court, saying he had used undue influence for what was purely logical and the right thing to do!

But no, the debbil Obama hates American workers, unions and good paying jobs.

Pull my other finger!

Excellent that you are linking these, they get forgotten in the shuffle as the points are being made. Kudos!

[ucrdem]

152. Thanks freshwest!

Absolutely. I'd forgotten some of these details but they're coming in handy so thank for the pointer!

p.s. unfortunately this thread is an oldie and is parked in the archive . . .

[TheBlackAdder]

114. American jobs to India, Russia, China, and the former Soviet Bloc. nt

[Marr]

26. I see we've entered the "It's Actually a Good Thing!" part of the process. /nt

[Elwood P Dowd]

27. Yes, the corporate propaganda pushers for the 1% are out in full force.

We need more corporate control and more corporate profits for the mega-rich. After all, NAFTA created tens of millions of jobs and saved our economy in the 1990s.

[ucrdem]

29. He didn't run against free trade agreements, and if this was NAFTA,

it would have gotten finished and ratified long ago.

[YoungDemCA]

53. Some people here act like Obama ran on a radical left-wing platform

If anything, he was at least as mainstream/centrist as Hillary Clinton was in 2008, if not more so. The only real difference was his opposition to the Iraq War, and even that's overblown when you consider that he was very hawkish on Afghanistan during the campaign-and furthermore, Clinton backtracked on her initial support of the Iraq War during the campaign regardless.

I had thought that only Tea Party types were foolish enough to think Obama was ever going to be radical or even left-wing in a meaningful sense, but I guess I was wrong. No left-winger will become the President of the United States under the current system. We may as well be realistic about this. Don't make Obama into something he's not.

Politicians are never 100% like their campaign makes them out to be, and a lot of what attracted a wide variety of Americans about Obama on was an overall philosophy of governance rather than "I will do specifically X, Y, and Z while in office." Americans in 2008 were also sick of not just the Bush Administration and their Republican allies, but Washington insiders more generally, like McCain and Clinton; and Obama successfully painted himself as a (relative) outsider.

[joshcryer]

65. Rose colored glasses.

I tell people time and time again whenever somethings comes up to look at Obama's campaign rhetoric. The most telling was how with regards to Social Security he said he'd "put everything on the table," whilst Clinton said she would never do that. That alone should've differentiated him from Clinton in the eyes of the left. But the campaign was pretty brilliant, a mass consumer campaign solely designed to elicit an emotional response.

[Marr]

76. He specifically promised to renegotiate NAFTA.

Not only did he ignore that promise completely, he's demanded an even bigger version of it for a new market.

[JDPriestly]

70. Yes, here let me take your job. It only hurts for a little while. And look at how good you will

feel once you have all that spare time. And then just watch how the rich get richer.

Obama's request that Congress raise the minimum wage is not compatible with his plug for the TPP. American wages have stagnated since the 1970s, since we first got so wild about international trade. That sucking sound gets louder with each agreement. What kind of fools do the corporations think we are?

[JEB]

28. Excuse me for being skeptical.

Why is not Labor involved in the negotiations? Seems to be dominated by corporate lobbyists, representatives and shills. Where are those representing our environment in these secret negotiations? I've had it with this blind faith in "Free Trade" that has cost us so much. Smells like bullshit, sticks to your boots like bullshit and I don't want to eat it find out if it tastes like bullshit.

[ucrdem]

30. "U.S. Call for Environmental Defense in Trans-Pacific Partnership":

January 15, 2014

The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.

Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region. Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.

We are glad to explain here how the United States is working to ensure that partners’ commitments under multilateral environmental agreements and other environmental laws and rules are enforced in the TPP.

* The groundbreaking conservation and marine fisheries provisions proposed by the United States in the TPP talks – fully explained in our December 2011 “Green Paper” online – go beyond the multilateral agreements on fisheries management to which the United States and some of the other countries are already parties.

* We are proposing that the TPP include, for the first time in any trade or environment agreement, groundbreaking prohibitions on fish subsidies that set a new and higher baseline for fisheries protections.

* Similarly, the broader U.S. proposals on conservation, also detailed in our Green Paper, would elevate other TPP countries’ commitments toward our own congressionally-set standards on issues such as the conservation of wildlife, forests, and protected areas.

* Even as we push to raise the bar on environmental protections in new ways, we continue to insist that countries live up to commitments they’ve made in their own laws implementing their MEAs. These include but are not limited to the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), the Montreal protocol which covers ozone-depleting substances, and the MARPOL agreement which governs marine pollution from ships.

* So the United States is standing firm on logging regulations, pollution control and other key issues where we’ve always led the way.

U.S. negotiators have made clear where we don’t agree with weaker TPP proposals on environmental provisions, and just how serious we are about making sure that the obligations in the environmental chapter are subject to the same enforcement processes as obligations elsewhere in the TPP, including recourse to trade sanctions.

It’s true that U.S. negotiators are fighting alone on some of these issues – but that’s exactly what they’re doing: pressing harder, not retreating.

In December the trade ministers of the 12 TPP countries met for three days to tackle tough issues together, including in the environment chapter. There, the United States reiterated our bedrock position on enforceability of the entire environment chapter, as well as our strong commitments to provisions such as those combating wildlife trafficking and illegal logging.

The entire TPP negotiation, including on the environmental chapter, is ongoing. We will continue to work with Congress and with our stakeholders in the environmental community, as we have from day one, for the strongest possible outcome. Together, we can continue to call on TPP partners to join us in achieving the high environmental standards being proposed and advocated by the United States.


Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/01/20140116291124.html#ixzz3QNIQK3BX

It's in there, and it's all posted on the State Department website.

[JEB]

31. Nice sales pitch.

I'm not buying. Been lied to too many times.

[2naSalit]

33. Campaign speech.

I don't buy it either. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. I don't care who the sales rep is.

[ucrdem]

35. If it's such a sell-out, why is it taking so long to finish?

It's been in negotiations for six years and time is money that multinational corporations don't like to waste.

[eridani]

32. Then why the sections allowing corporate thugs to overrule elected governments? n/t

[ucrdem]

34. Can you post those sections?

Thanks . . . and yes I'm yanking your chain on purpose

[eridani]

68. All there in Wikileaks.

http://www.thenation.com/article/168627/nafta-steroids#

https://wikileaks.org/tpp/

http://www.citizen.org/tpp-ip-wikileaks

[ucrdem]

73. Right, the secret IP agreement that's been leaked once a month

since 2010, including a May 2012 version leaked by the esteemed former congressman from California, Daryl Issa:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/darrell-issa-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal_n_1521035.html

Anyway I did sort through this once in January and my conclusion was that the hype was mainly hype, and if you closely scrutinize for example Jules' scary intro, it turns out to say very little about the agreement, in which I personally could find nothing particularly objectionable.

[JDPriestly]

74. It's the trade courts. The courts patterned after the NAFTA courts.

They do mean the loss of democracy and sovereignty with regard to numerous issues -- and not just for the American people.

I know this from personal experience. Just read the NAFTA laws on the courts.

The effort to shill for Obama's TPP -- read the NAFTA law especially on the courts before you do it.

[ucrdem]

78. Okay but the treaty being negotiated isn't NAFTA.

Yes, I understand your point that FTA's have in the past proven damaging to the environment and livelihoods of many persons, but what evidence do you have that this agreement and NAFTA are identical?

[JDPriestly]

77. Could you, ucrdem, please post the TPP agreement since you are advocating for it so strongly?

I'd love to see it. Have you seen it?

[ucrdem]

83. Happy to oblige:

And yes, I've seen enough of it to be skeptical of the skeptics. Anyway here's the outline which I believe we've discussed before:
.............................................................................................................
USTR Fact Sheet on Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Outline

13 November 2011

ENHANCING TRADE AND INVESTMENT, SUPPORTING JOBS, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT: OUTLINES OF THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

On November 12, 2011, the Leaders of the nine Trans-Pacific Partnership countries – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States – announced the achievement of the broad outlines of an ambitious, 21st-century Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that will enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries, promote innovation, economic growth and development, and support the creation and retention of jobs.

The agreement’s broad framework is as follows:

Key Features

In reporting to Leaders on the achievement of the broad outlines of an agreement, the Trade Ministers identified five defining features that will make TPP a landmark, 21st-century trade agreement, setting a new standard for global trade and incorporating next-generation issues that will boost the competitiveness of TPP countries in the global economy.

o Comprehensive market access: to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to goods and services trade and investment, so as to create new opportunities for our workers and businesses and immediate benefits for our consumers.

o Fully regional agreement: to facilitate the development of production and supply chains among TPP members, supporting our goal of creating jobs, raising living standards, improving welfare and promoting sustainable growth in our countries.

o Cross-cutting trade issues: to build on work being done in APEC and other fora by incorporating in TPP four new, cross-cutting issues. These are:

-- Regulatory coherence. Commitments will promote trade between the countries by making trade among them more seamless and efficient.

-- Competitiveness and Business Facilitation. Commitments will enhance the domestic and regional competitiveness of each TPP country’s economy and promote economic integration and jobs in the region, including through the development of regional production and supply chains.

-- Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Commitments will address concerns small- and medium-sized enterprises have raised about the difficulty in understanding and using trade agreements, encouraging small- and medium-sized enterprises to trade internationally.

-- Development. Comprehensive and robust market liberalization, improvements in trade and investment enhancing disciplines, and other commitments, including a mechanism to help all TPP countries to effectively implement the Agreement and fully realize its benefits, will serve to strengthen institutions important for economic development and governance and thereby contribute significantly to advancing TPP countries’ respective economic development priorities.

o New trade challenges: to promote trade and investment in innovative products and services, including related to the digital economy and green technologies, and to ensure a competitive business environment across the TPP region.

o Living agreement: to enable the updating of the agreement as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.

Scope

• The agreement is being negotiated as a single undertaking that covers all key trade and trade-related areas. In addition to updating traditional approaches to issues covered by previous free trade agreements (FTAs), the TPP includes new and emerging trade issues and cross-cutting issues.

• More than twenty negotiating groups have met over nine rounds to develop the legal texts of the agreement and the specific market access commitments the TPP countries will make to open their markets to each others’ goods, services, and government procurement.

• All of the nine countries also have agreed to adopt high standards in order to ensure that the benefits and obligations of the agreement are fully shared. They also have agreed on the need to appropriately address sensitivities and the unique challenges faced by developing country members, including through trade capacity building, technical assistance, and staging of commitments as appropriate.

• A set of new, cross-cutting commitments are intended to reduce costs, enable the development of a more seamless trade flows and trade networks between TPP members, encourage the participation of small- and medium-sized enterprises in international trade, and promote economic growth and higher living standards.

• The negotiating teams have proposed new commitments on cross-cutting issues in traditional chapters and also have made substantial progress toward agreement on separate, stand-alone commitments to address these issues.

Legal Texts

• The negotiating groups have developed consolidated legal text in virtually all negotiating groups. In some areas, text is almost complete; in others, further work is needed to finalize text on specific issues. The texts contain brackets to indicate where differences remain.

• The legal texts will cover all aspects of commercial relations among the TPP countries. The following are the issues under negotiation and a summary of progress.

o Competition. The competition text will promote a competitive business environment, protect consumers, and ensure a level playing field for TPP companies. Negotiators have made significant progress on the text, which includes commitments on the establishment and maintenance of competition laws and authorities, procedural fairness in competition law enforcement, transparency, consumer protection, private rights of action and technical cooperation.

o Cooperation and Capacity Building. The TPP countries agree that capacity building and other forms of cooperation are critical both during the negotiations and post-conclusion to support TPP countries’ ability to implement and take advantage of the agreement. They recognize that capacity building activities can be an effective tool in helping to address specific needs of developing countries in meeting the high standards the TPP countries have agreed to seek. In this spirit, several cooperation and capacity building activities have already been implemented in response to specific requests and additional activities are being planned to assist developing countries in achieving the objectives of the agreement. The TPP countries also are discussing specific text that will establish a demand-driven and flexible institutional mechanism to effectively facilitate and cooperation and capacity building assistance after the TPP is implemented.

o Cross-Border Services. TPP countries have agreed on most of the core elements of the cross-border services text. This consensus provides the basis for securing fair, open, and transparent markets for services trade, including services supplied electronically and by small- and medium-sized enterprises, while preserving the right of governments to regulate in the public interest.

o Customs. TPP negotiators have reached agreement on key elements of the customs text as well as on the fundamental importance of establishing customs procedures that are predictable, transparent and that expedite and facilitate trade, which will help link TPP firms into regional production and supply chains. The text will ensure that goods are released from customs control as quickly as possible, while preserving the ability of customs authorities to strictly enforce customs laws and regulations. TPP countries also have agreed on the importance of close cooperation between authorities to ensure the effective implementation and operation of the agreement as well as other customs matters.

o E-Commerce. The e-commerce text will enhance the viability of the digital economy by ensuring that impediments to both consumer and businesses embracing this medium of trade are addressed. Negotiators have made encouraging progress, including on provisions addressing customs duties in the digital environment, authentication of electronic transactions, and consumer protection. Additional proposals on information flows and treatment of digital products are under discussion.

o Environment. A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The TPP countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services.

o Financial Services. The text related to investment in financial institutions and cross-border trade in financial services will improve transparency, non-discrimination, fair treatment of new financial services, and investment protections and an effective dispute settlement remedy for those protections. These commitments will create market-opening opportunities, benefit businesses and consumers of financial products, and at the same time protect the right of financial regulators to take action to ensure the integrity and stability of financial markets, including in the event of a financial crisis.

o Government Procurement. The text of the Government Procurement Chapter will ensure that procurement covered under the chapter is conducted in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. The TPP negotiators have agreed on the basic principles and procedures for conducting procurement under the chapter, and are developing the specific obligations. The TPP partners are seeking comparable coverage of procurement by all the countries, while recognizing the need to facilitate the opening of the procurement markets of developing countries through the use of transitional measures.

o Intellectual Property. TPP countries have agreed to reinforce and develop existing World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) rights and obligations to ensure an effective and balanced approach to intellectual property rights among the TPP countries. Proposals are under discussion on many forms of intellectual property, including trademarks, geographical indications, copyright and related rights, patents, trade secrets, data required for the approval of certain regulated products, as well as intellectual property enforcement and genetic resources and traditional knowledge. TPP countries have agreed to reflect in the text a shared commitment to the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.

o Investment. The investment text will provide substantive legal protections for investors and investments of each TPP country in the other TPP countries, including ongoing negotiations on provisions to ensure non-discrimination, a minimum standard of treatment, rules on expropriation, and prohibitions on specified performance requirements that distort trade and investment. The investment text will include provisions for expeditious, fair, and transparent investor-State dispute settlement subject to appropriate safeguards, with discussions continuing on scope and coverage. The investment text will protect the rights of the TPP countries to regulate in the public interest.

o Labor. TPP countries are discussing elements for a labor chapter that include commitments on labor rights protection and mechanisms to ensure cooperation, coordination, and dialogue on labor issues of mutual concern. They agree on the importance of coordination to address the challenges of the 21st-century workforce through bilateral and regional cooperation on workplace practices to enhance workers’ well-being and employability, and to promote human capital development and high-performance workplaces.

o Legal Issues. TPP countries have made substantial progress on provisions concerning the administration of the agreement, including clear and effective rules for resolving disputes and are discussing some of the specific issues relating to the process. TPP countries also have made progress on exceptions from agreement obligations and on disciplines addressing transparency in the development of laws, regulations, and other rules. In addition, they are discussing proposals related to good governance and to procedural fairness issues in specific areas.

o Market Access for Goods. The TPP countries have agreed to establish principles and obligations related to trade in goods for all TPP countries that ensure that the market access that they provide to each other is ambitious, balanced, and transparent. The text on trade in goods addresses tariff elimination among the partners, including significant commitments beyond the partners’ current WTO obligations, as well as elimination of non-tariff measures that can serve as trade barriers. The TPP partners are considering proposals related to import and export licensing and remanufactured goods. Additional provisions related to agricultural export competition and food security also are under discussion.

o Rules of Origin. TPP countries have agreed to seek a common set of rules of origin to determine whether a product originates in the TPP region. They also have agreed that TPP rules of origin will be objective, transparent and predictable and are discussing approaches regarding the ability to cumulate or use materials from within the free trade area in order to make a claim that a product is originating. In addition, the TPP countries are discussing the proposals for a system for verification of preference claims that is simple, efficient and effective.

o Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS). To enhance animal and plant health and food safety and facilitate trade among the TPP countries, the nine countries have agreed to reinforce and build upon existing rights and obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The SPS text will contain a series of new commitments on science, transparency, regionalization, cooperation, and equivalence. In addition, negotiators have agreed to consider a series of new bilateral and multilateral cooperative proposals, including import checks and verification.

o Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The TBT text will reinforce and build upon existing rights and obligations under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Technical Barriers, which will facilitate trade among the TPP countries and help our regulators protect health, safety, and the environment and achieve other legitimate policy objectives. The text will include commitments on compliance periods, conformity assessment procedures, international standards, institutional mechanisms, and transparency. The TPP countries also are discussing disciplines on conformity assessment procedures, regulatory cooperation, trade facilitation, transparency, and other issues, as well as proposals that have been tabled covering specific sectors.

o Telecommunications. The telecommunications text will promote competitive access for telecommunications providers in TPP markets, which will benefit consumers and help businesses in TPP markets become more competitive. In addition to broad agreement on the need for reasonable network access for suppliers through interconnection and access to physical facilities, TPP countries are close to consensus on a broad range of provisions enhancing the transparency of the regulatory process, and ensuring rights of appeal of decisions. Additional proposals have been put forward on choice of technology and addressing the high cost of international mobile roaming.

o Temporary Entry. TPP countries have substantially concluded the general provisions of the chapter, which are designed to promote transparency and efficiency in the processing of applications for temporary entry, and ongoing technical cooperation between TPP authorities. Specific obligations related to individual categories of business person are under discussion.

o Textiles and Apparel. In addition to market access on textiles and apparel, the TPP countries also are discussing a series of related disciplines, such as customs cooperation and enforcement procedures, rules of origin and a special safeguard.

o Trade Remedies. TPP countries have agreed to affirm their WTO rights and obligations and are considering new proposals, including obligations that would build upon these existing rights and obligations in the areas of transparency and procedural due process. Proposals also have been put forward relating to a transitional regional safeguard mechanism.
Tariff Schedules and Other Market-Opening Packages

• The TPP tariff schedule will cover all goods, representing some 11,000 tariff lines. The nine countries also are developing common TPP rules of origin, and are weighing proposals now for how to do this most effectively and simply.

• Services and investment packages will cover all service sectors. To ensure the high-standard outcome the nine countries are seeking, the TPP countries are negotiating on a “negative list” basis, which presumes comprehensive coverage but allows countries to negotiate specific exceptions to commitments in specific service sectors.

• Government procurement packages are being negotiated with each country seeking to broaden coverage to ensure the maximum access to each others’ government procurement markets, while recognizing each others’ sensitivities.

Next Steps

• Leaders of the nine TPP countries have instructed negotiators to meet in early December, and at that time to schedule additional negotiating rounds.


Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#ixzz3QNgv2hEU

[JDPriestly]

86. That is not a trade agreement. That is an absolutely worthless, vague and very general

document. It's useless. I want to see the agreement. I want to see the specific provisions of the agreement especially with regard to the kangaroo courts the agreement will set up.

Please post the agreement that you favor.

• Leaders of the nine TPP countries have instructed negotiators to meet in early December, and at that time to schedule additional negotiating rounds.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2011/11/20111113202959su0.4597829.html#ixzz3QNgv2hEU

How can anyone favor an agreement that does not yet exist?

[Hoyt]

90. How can one oppose it, or bash Obama, for that same reason?

[JDPriestly]

98. One can oppose trade agreements in general.

One can oppose them on the ground that we already have a balance of payments that is too negative -- the worst in the world I believe. The rest of the world, our trading partners, are buying out the assets of our country. "Frree" trade is costing Americans dearly.

The Chinese undervalue their currency. We do nothing about it. We are tricked and undercut by nearly all of our trading partners. And our corporations care nothing about the American people. We are sold junk from overseas. Many Americans don't notice how bad the trash we are being sold is.

There are lots of reasons for opposing trade agreements even if you don't know the details. The trade courts are a travesty. Republicans complain about redistribution of wealth. That's what the trade courts have the capacity to do -- and on a massive, national level.

There are sound reasons to oppose trade agreements without knowing the details especially if you know and think about the history of what our trade agreements have done to American jobs, our balance of payments, our federal tax receipts and other aspects of our society.

The appropriate question is how in the world an honest person can support a trade agreement without having seen the fine print which is where the dirty details are hidden. I can only think that this is a person who has little experience with our current trade agreements.

We should have one-on-one agreements, country by country from which we can exit easily if we discover that our trading partner is dishonest or milking us. These broad trade agreements are an invitation to abuse, to fraud and to a great deal of long-term bitterness.

These broad, regional trade agreements are an experiment, a dangerous experiment. So far the experiment has failed for American working people.

[Hoyt]

124. I guess if one thinks we are self-sufficient and should stick to the rest of the world. I don't.

[JDPriestly]

131. Several reasons.

First, we know what the results are from the past agreements. The rich make out like bandits and ordinary Americans lose their jobs. The educated as well as the poor.

Second, our trade balance is in the red, dangerously so. Some laugh at that, but the debts have to be paid. And the red ink tells us that we are buying too much from other countries and not selling enough to them. That means that our past trade agreements and probably the concept of just opening the ports and gates of our economy to goods made with labor cheaper than we can afford to have is not a good idea. Sooner or later we will be called to pay up. Right now, our real estate and other assets are being purchased by wealthy foreigners who are making us into a country of employees and renters. The core of American values is property -- meaning private ownership of property. My grandparents could own property, but I wonder whether my grandchildren will be able to -- whether my children will be able to. We owe too much to foreign countries. The US dollar is backed up by the US taxpayer. Yes it is. It's in the Constitution. Thus we should not run up huge trade deficits, and we already have.

Americans are not learning how to make things, the skills that we should be learning, the skills with which we can learn to invent and create with real materials and not just with computers. There is very little demand for the skills of an iron-worker or a seamstress or a carpenter in the US. Some, but very little. This is the road to poverty. This is not the self-determination, the skilled craftsmanship that made us a great country in the first place. My generation (I'm 71) in the Midwest learned to sew. Who learns that today? Some students enter fashion schools not knowing how to sew. We are becoming a nation of people who can't work with our hands. That is horrible.

"Free" trade has caused much of our problem with income disparity. I could see the result of it today. I was across the street from a museum that had free admission today. There were no parking places. There were lines outside the museum. Children, teenagers, all happy to go to the museum. Many people cannot afford to go the museums very often. So many really healthy , culturally important activities are too expensive for a large percentage of our population. That is the result of free trade. This huge gap in the incomes of people. One working parent used to be able to at least support a small family. Today, many families cannot make it without two incomes. Free trade is partly to blame, greatly to blame.

I oppose free trade because we are maintaining certain economic structures and relationships that do not work when those who make products abroad and import them make huge profits. Those who buy the imports borrow to buy them and impoverish themselves and then cannot get jobs in the industries that would pay them well to make the products. That system cannot last for long. Sooner or later the debt will become too heavy to bear. And then we will find the sweat shops are being built in our country and the cycle will start over with ordinary people becoming poorer and poorer with each round of trade agreements.

Free trade is unsustainable in my opinion.

[Hoyt]

133. I don't think you get where you want to be by isolation, particularly in the long run.

[JDPriestly]

136. I'm not suggesting isolation.

I am saying that we need to change the structure of our economy to protect all Americans and make prosperity possible for all Americans in a "free" trade economy before we get involved in any more trade agreements.

As long as the rich take their profits so that they can sit in the sun in the Bahamas or on the shores of La Jolla, Ca while middle class and poor Americans are mercilessly running up debt on low wages at the local import stores like Walmart, "free" trade is socially and economically too expensive for America.

No more free trade agreements until our economy can distribute the wealth not necessarily fairly but so that the poor and middle class don't just descend into dire poverty.

No more free trade agreements in the society we have now.

First, free education for as long as a person wants and can perform acceptably.

Free day care and child care for working mothers.

Free, single payer healthcare for everyone.

Encourage people to use birth control so that our population does not burst beyond the level of our ability to feed ourselves.

Use our tax policy to encourage companies to build production facilities like factories in the US.

Encourage trades in the US and compensate people who learn to work with their hands as well as their minds very well.

Tax Wall Street transactions and encourage our brightest and best to go into fields other than finance or if they do go into finance to work for the good of humankind and not just for their own benefit.

There are so many, many things we could do to maintain a good society while opening our borders to trade with others. But until we do them, no "free" trade. It is costing average Americans their shirts and will destroy their lives. No more.

And no free trade agreements until we have a society that distributes the profits from the trade more equitably. No way.

Above all, no more "free" trade until those from whom we buy products buy products from us that are approximately of the same value as those we buy from them. The trade deficit has to come down. It is unsustainable.

[Nay]

139. AAAAAAAAMEN. nt

[jwirr]

127. I agree - vagueness of the language leaves the actual action open to a whole bunch of differing

interpretations. I would like to see a committee of progressives take this document and review it. The committee would include Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Saunders and a lot of the others that are speaking out.

[JDPriestly]

132. Good idea. But the paper is just full of noble-sounding intentions.

It's like a list of New Year's Resolutions. It is worthless and meaningless. What matters is living your good intentions.

I don't know why anyone would present that as saying much about what the actual agreement will be. The DUer who presented it has probably never researched the actual substance of NAFTA for any reason or to any extent.

[YoungDemCA]

55. That's not an intellectually honest question

nt

[eridani]

69. Horsehit. This abomination exists to enable corporations to sue governments

Overturning environmental and labor protections and any hint of public goals that interfere with profit maximization.

[Joe Turner]

36. "The point of TPP is to boost US exports"

NAFTA was supposed to boost exports and all it did was boost the exports of American jobs. CAFTA was supposed to boost exports and all it did was export American Jobs. MFN trade status for China was supposed to boost exports instead, you guessed it, the result was millions of US jobs being exported away with all the skills and wealth it created.

Sorry TPP supporters your credibility was lost decades ago. The fact you have to hide the details of the TPP from the public and even Congress makes the whole propaganda effort a tired old sham. You want credibility? How about being honest for a change.

[Hoyt]

38. American jobs were going with or without NAFTA. NAFTA gets blamed for a lot of junk

caused by other factors.

[Joe Turner]

48. American jobs were going with or without NAFTA

Yes, that happens when a country eliminates tariffs and trade restrictions while trading with countries that have no such idealistic notions about trade but are happy to fleece our industry to build their own. Japan was the first to show how to do it. The U.S. and U.K. are really the only 2 nations that believe in free trade. The rest of the world is more interested in building their industries and creating wealth and craft trade legislation in their favor. We used to do this.

[Elwood P Dowd]

59. Not like they were starting in the late 1990s after NAFTA, GATT/WTO Uruguay round, MFN for China

I didn't know a single person who had lost a job due to outsourcing prior to about 1997. Since then I can name about two dozen or more friends whose lives have been turned upside down, including engineers whose jobs went overseas. Tens of thousands of factories have been shut down in this country the past 15-20 years and moved overseas. NAFTA jump started the exodus and put the race to the bottom in high gear. NAFTA allowed the camel to get it's head in the tent, and a few years later the whole damn thing was in there. After manufacturing, it moved to customer support, engineering, tech support, computer jobs, etc..

[Hoyt]

37. Thank goodness, one of only a few threads not bashing Obama for selling us down the river with TPP.

[Skittles]

51. we're just supposed to BELIEVE, Hoyt

if Obama is pro-TPP it *MUST* be good for us! See how easy that is?

[treestar]

145. It's the other way round on DU

We are expected to believe the TPP is a bad thing, without any proof or real argument or support of the argument. There is a lot of feigned shock that anyone wants to find out about it for themselves, or at least to wonder why Obama likes it. It must be bad, because NAFTA was bad which we are supposed to believe, though the economy was good in the 90s and collapsed not because of NAFTA but because of Bush.

The purveyors of this argument feel quite entitled and go immediately into ad hominem mode with the slightest question.

[Skittles]

147. I disagree

I have researched enough to realize it is crap, designed to help WE THE BIG CORPORATIONS......fuck that

[treestar]

148. There is the question of how people work for those corporations

The hatred of "corporations" on DU is kind of weird. We are supposed to agree with it. Yet the modern economy could hardly be small shops and farms. There are going to be big corporations and what is good for them is good for jobs here. It's not like there is a complete and total disconnect. DU has too many posters talking as if they are completely separate from the rest of us. Like we don't have stock in them for retirement, jobs with them, or are customers of them.

[Joe Turner]

52. With TPP Obama certainly is selling us down the river

If us means American citizens. Hey for U.S. corporations it's Let the Good Times Roll. Who do you honestly think President Obama works for? I thought that was settled several years ago.

[JDPriestly]

57. Before we enter into any more trade agreements we need to fix our balance of payments numbers.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf

Notice that as we have entered into more trade agreements, our balance of payments has fallen more and more into the red.

Here are the CIA factbook numbers. Notice the US at the bottom with the biggest outflow of money, biggest deficit in trade.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html

(Horrible, shocking numbers. The American people, oblivious to what is going on outside the US beyond what the corporate-owned press tells them, are being taken for a ride. Does President Obama think we are fools.)

We are not competing. We are being robbed. And it's free trade that it is robbing us.

We have to change our tax structure to encourage investment in the US. I think that the TPP from what little I have been able to learn about it will INCREASE our negative balance of payments, that is create a larger deficit in our balance of payments. We cannot afford that.

We have to change our tax code before we enter any trade agreements. And then we should not enter any trade agreements that make it possible for corporations to sue our government in international trade courts. That is a horrible system. If we citizens want to sue government, we can only do so if our government laws permit us to do so. Why should some corporation from China or France be able to sue our government and make us taxpayers pay damages. No way. That's not trade. That's (potentially and probably) blackmail.

NAFTA has not worked out. TPP is not going to work out.

Here is a summary of Stiglitz's proposal for changing our tax law to help us stimulate our economy and increase jobs in the US. Looks good to me.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/30/seven-key-takeaways-from-joseph-stiglitz%E2%80%99s-tax-plan-for-growth-and-equality/

No to the TPP.

[joshcryer]

62. That, and to leverage consumer products as automation comes online.

The US will be employing less for manufacturing, but as the stats are showing, manufacturing products and GDP as a whole is going up. Thanks to automation. If we don't have robust trade agreements with basically everyone, the Chinese labor paradigm is going to be quite fickle. China is relying on being able to produce low cost labor for decades, but that isn't happening if you look at the numbers.

In the end it is really about geopolitics, boxing in Russia and China, the overall numbers are probably not going to be favorable to the US.

[Major Hogwash]

64. Well, this is sure to piss Putin off!!

What can Putin export, besides borscht and vodka?
Naw, he'll just sit back and stew in his juices while President Obama runs around the world making new trading partners!!!

The TPP involves 11 Pacific-rim countries and Japan.
Which is one of the areas of the world that was ignored by the EU, China, and to a certain extent, India.

[Populist_Prole]

81. Unless it lowers imports more, it's just more of a race to the bottom

Net exports good. If said treaty makes imports grow more than exports ( which every fucking one so far has ) then there is no basis on export bragging rights.

Of course the spinners know this, and they move heaven & earth to brush that fact aside.

Sorry, we're not stupid anymore. I'm not going to support economic suicide in exchange for social issue bullshit crumbs.

[Hekate]

82. KnR to read more about the TPP later....

Might learn something new

[ucrdem]

85. I think we're going to pleasantly surprised

that is, if this thing ever gets off the ground, and if I had to bet on it, I probably wouldn't. Anyway thanks Hekate!

[great white snark]

92. Thanks so much ucrdem.

Nice to see something other than conjecture regarding this issue.

[Jamastiene]

96. I wasn't one of the ones who liked it when he said God is in the mix.

That is not exactly the best choice of words to use if you are trying to sell this idea to those of us who know this will only help corporations get richer, while workers will be expected to meet more demanding production quotas for less money. You know they won't be generous with raises with the more hectic pace while they make more money than they know what to do with. My signature line is still true. When they get all the money, they didn't exactly make friends along the way with the greed and power hungry ways they got all the money.

Yeah, maybe it is best to leave both God and corporations' unfettered greed out of the mix. We might have a functioning democratic republic if the fucking government would just stop with all the you must sacrifice while we live high on the hog bullshit. Fuck that. Some of us see through it and aren't buying the bullshit they are trying to sell, in all the wrong ways.

[ChosenUnWisely]

97. Boost Exports, yeah jobs, oil and US Dollars is the only thing that will be exported

It is a sad day in America when Democrats are blindly following their elected leaders just like the GOP does and is brought up almost daily here. Some Democrats are acting just like their Republican counterparts no day, lemmings.

No more critical thinking not even in the Democratic Party.

[BeanMusical]

99. That thing will be a calamity.

[pampango]

100. Exports are 40% of Germany's economy; 9% of the US'. Imports are 35% in Germany; 13% in the US.

I would say that our problem is not too much imports but not enough exports. Obama is on the right track.

And it is not due to US' high manufacturing wages.



There is no reason that we cannot match Germany's export success.

[sendero]

102. We've heard this song before..

.... just because the stated goal is more exports doesn't mean that...

1) The stated goal will be achieved or

2) That's really the goal

[LondonReign2]

104. I want to thank the Third Way "Democrats" for their input in this

very important matter.



Edit: On rereading the thread, I see there is a heavy dose of the BOG transitive property: Obama is awesome, he supports the TPP, therefore TPP must be awesome.

[pampango]

107. So anyone with a different opinion is "Third Way" and a member of the BOG? Nice.

60% of Democrats think the TPP is a good thing. Does that mean that anyone who disagrees is a republican and even a tea partier? Of course not!

I expect freepers to call each other 'communist' or 'socialist' rather than discussing their differences. That's their herd mentality. Liberals are different and can disagree on some policies without calling each other names. At least I would hope that would be the case.

[LondonReign2]

120. Anyone who thinks a treaty that is negotiated in secret,

in which corporations literally write the agreement, while labor is shut out, is indeed Third Way.

And anyone that thinks the agreement must be wonderful solely based on the fact that Obama supports it is indeed BOG. You'll see that mentality up and down the thread.

Democrats can absolutely have differences of opinion on policy. When the begin supporting pro-Corporate, anti-Union, Republican approved legislation, they are no longer Democrats.

[pampango]

122. All international treaties are negotiated 'in secret'. Should liberals oppose all treaties?

Republicans campaigned against FDR's claiming his administration "secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities."

Of course anyone who supports anything solely because Obama (or FDR or Kennedy or LBJ) supports it or opposes it for the same reason has a personality disorder. The fact is that 60% of Democrats believe the TPP is a good idea. Is the Democratic base just mindless cheerleaders for 'our guy'? I think not, but perhaps you disagree.

The 'Third Way' stands for many things:

Third Way has been involved in the following policy issues:

1- The economic benefits of green energy. Since 2010, Third Way is lobbying the creation of an alternative clean energy and climate agenda.

2- Deficit reduction. One example: a proposal to cut federal pensions was adopted by the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission and the House Republicans’ deficit package. The Grand Bargain - an over-aching tax and budget deal to reduce the deficit by cutting Social Security and Medicaid is an issue they champion.

3- Third Way proposals to reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were included in White House debt talks and the congressional “Super Committee” deliberations.

4- The repeal of “Don't ask, don't tell” and is currently shifting its focus to impact repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

5- Advocated for new trade accords with Korea, Colombia and Panama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(think_tank)

Any one who agrees with them on trade or green energy has to also agree with them on every other issue they pursue? What if you or I believe in "the economic benefits of green energy"? Does that make us a "Third Wayer" even if I disagree with the rest?

The same question could be asked about our views and the Tea Party. We might agree with them on an issue here or there, but reject most of what they peddle. Does the limited agreement make us "tea partiers' as well?

[Fred Sanders]

126. Folks seem uninformed..as you say treaties are ALWAYS negotiated in secret, voted in in public. Duh.

Lot of public info. on the the American negotiating posture on a strange thing called the Internet:


https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-issue-issue-negotiating-objectives

[LondonReign2]

130. Extolling the virtues of the Third Way?

That's all I need to know.

[pampango]

134. Nice spin. I said "even if I disagree with the rest" and "reject most of what they peddle". That

represents "extolling the virtues of the Third Way" to you? That's all I need to know.

What if you were to agree with the tea party in opposing the TPP? Does that mean you are "extolling the virtues" of the tea party when you disagree with them on "most of what they peddle"? Hardly.

[Bobbie Jo]

138. lol

Good Lord.

[YoungDemCA]

140. Illogical knee-jerk reaction?

That's all I need to know.

[LondonReign2]

141. It's an illogical knee-jerk reaction to despise the Third Way for trying to

turn the Democratic Party into the Republican Party? Yes, yes, what the Democrats really need to do is keep moving to the right...

[Broward]

108. I think that pretty much nails it, scary.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. I also want to thank them for rec'ing the thread. It is nice to have a concise list.

[QC]

123. Yep, that basically sums up the "arguments" on display here.

It's a way of thinking I saw often in my fundamentalist childhood. God is in control, so whatever happens is God's will and thus good, even if it contradicts what we were hoping would be God's will just yesterday.

[Autumn]

142. We had a hell of a storm three years ago and Jesus suggested we go with a metal roof.

Sure am glad I listened to him, we even got the barn done. I was VERY happy with Jesus. We have any construction issues in the future I'm gonna call on Jesus because I have found I can trust him and his crew. Now had he told me to go fix him a sammich his ass would have been grass. Now that Jesus is out of the way I find the thinking that since this is Obama's baby it's all good to be extremely child like and well, just fucking stupid.
It's almost like they don't care what this is and how it has been set up because... Obama... Obama's gonna be gone in two years. We are still gonna be right where we are, getting screwed.

[QC]

143. "extremely child like and well, just fucking stupid"

Another flashback to my fundamentalist upbringing, where we were taught it was a good thing to have the simple, unquestioning faith of a child.

Amazing the similarities, but don't you dare say "personality cult" 'cause that's mean!!!!!

[99Forever]

106. Some people will believe any damn thing.

Got some ocean front property for sale in Kansas, you interested?

[Warren Stupidity]

109. Stuck in spin cycle. Call the repairman.

[lonestarnot]

119. How is there an assumption of knowledge, let alone accuracy. The fucking deal is a secret. Yeah

call Sears repair. Oh nevermind, they're no good any more. Spin, skip rinse, continue spin.

[bigtree]

125. fact checker: imports would increase by virtually the same amount as exports

...meaning the net number of new jobs is zero.

from WaPo Fact Checker, Jan 30:

“Completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership provides the opportunity to open up markets, lower tariffs and, according to the Peterson Institute, increase U.S. exports by $123 billion and help support an additional 650,000 jobs.”

– Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, in an interview with the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, Jan. 26, 2015


Notice that Vilsack referred to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which is a well-regarded centrist think tank that focuses on international economic policy. The Peterson Institute advocates for free-trade agreements but also for programs that aid people who may be hurt by globalization.

The Peterson Institute in 2012 published a book titled “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Asia-Pacific Integration: A Quantitative Assessment,” by Peter A. Petri, Michael G. Plummer and Fan Zhai. The book does include an estimate that, by 2025, the United States would experience a gain of $77.5 billion in income from TPP, as well as a $124 billion increase in exports. But nowhere in the book does it says 650,000 jobs would be created...

Petri said that his book did not discuss job gains because mainstream economists do not believe that the number of jobs is significantly affected by trade policy.

“The reason we don’t project employment is that, like most trade economists, we don’t believe that trade agreements change the labor force in the long run. The consequential factors are demography, immigration, retirement benefits, etc.,” he said. “Rather, trade agreements affect how people are employed, and ideally substitute more productive jobs for less productive ones and thus raise real incomes.

The Commerce Department estimates that about 5,500 jobs are supported by every $1 billion in exports, so in theory that also would yield about 650,000 jobs. But that calculation would ignore the fact that the Petri book found that imports would increase by virtually the same amount as exports, meaning the net number of new jobs is zero.

...let’s put these numbers in context. Petri’s book says that a gain of $77.5 billion in income amounts to just a 0.4 percent increase in the pre-trade-deal baseline for the United States’ $20-trillion gross domestic product. You read that right—0.4 percent.

Indeed, a gain of 650,000 jobs would also be just 0.4 percent of projected employment of 168 million people, Petri said. “The percentage change is small,” Petri acknowledged, which he said is what one would expect from a large and efficient economy such as the United States. (Vietnam, by contrast, would see a gain of nearly 14 percent in income according to Petri’s model.)


read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/30/the-obama-administrations-illusionary-job-gains-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

[Populist_Prole]

144. True. As is the case the other FTAs

Imports surged more than exports. Much much more. Ignoring the import quotient as they do ( studiously so ) and touting exports as a way of evening trade balances were/are/will be another fools errand. It's the case of losing money on every transaction...then attempting to make up for it in sheer volume.

Aint gonna' work.

Of course this import surge will be downplayed by those pushing for this abomination, but not downplayed by corporate interests. It's not some ancillary benefit, it's the raison d'etre for them wanting this: Lower labor costs, less regulation. To them, it's a feature, not a bug.

[Fred Sanders]

153. Logic checker: increased trade means increased jobs...for both partners. Obama is correct.

[bigtree]

155. reality check

"...imports would increase by virtually the same amount as exports, meaning the net number of new jobs is zero."

"...a gain of 650,000 jobs would also be just 0.4 percent of projected employment of 168 million people."

"...Vietnam, by contrast, would see a gain of nearly 14 percent in income."

This is a backward way of increasing U.S. jobs which, if history holds true, will see a sharper rise in imports that exports predicted, exacerbating the trade deficit further. The only significant change would be a promise that Japan would open their market further; other nations involved already have 'free' trade agreement with the U.S. If you think Japan is going to make up a huge difference in exports, you must think their paltry tariff is some insurmountable barrier...it isn't.

NOTHING is being negotiated which will prevent the exodus of U'S. jobs to these countries. That's what hurting employment,

This is a pig in a poke.

[jeff47]

150. For that claim to be true, the TPP would need to cover countries with trade barriers

It doesn't. We already have free trade agreements with most of the countries in the TPP. Those markets are already wide-open to US exports.

The only significant economy with trade barriers that would be lifted by the TPP is Japan. They have a whopping 1.2% tariff on US goods. If you think 1.2% is a massive barrier to trade, you must think sales taxes are utterly destroying the US economy.

[rurallib]

151. So let's have a full and open debate on TPP in Congress

rather that the fast track authority. Then all these arguments can be open to the sunlight.
Open government, that is what democracy is about

[TimeToEvolve]

154. the only "export" under TPP would be filthy, Earth-warming fossil fuels- tar sands oil& fracked gas

the TPP is instrumental to the OILMEN and other mega corporations , not the people.
apparently you are completely blind to the existence of the Justice -destroying ISDS chapter in the TPP
under the TPP the oilmen could sue us for not building the KXL pipeline, or for instituting fracking bans; as this cuts into their profits..
Tar sands oil and fracking are the most environmentally destructive energy sources, yet that is what the oilmen and the ReThugs are gunning for.

doesn't it seem odd that most Dems are against this yet most of these climate change-denying, austerity-loving ReThugs support the TPP? this raises a red flag with anyone with more than two brain cells.

so far PBO has been a dissapointment.. ditching the public potion, continuing these pointless wars and mass surveilance, continuing the pointless war on drugs and snarkily dissing any possibility of ending it, harshest punishment for whistleblowers of any presidential administration, no significant action on climate change still after 6 years, the list goes on and on..

apparently some of us liked to be hoodwinked and bamboozled over an over again.

NOW IS THE TIME TO CRUSH THE TPP! NO FAST TRACK!

[kentuck]

156. Oh Boy !

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jshappell/1718865665/