Obama: Elizabeth Warren Is Simply Wrong On TPP

[a kennedy]

President Barack Obama criticized Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others who are opposed to a new trade deal that he is negotiating on Tuesday, saying that his opponents are simply wrong on the facts of the deal.

Warren and other Democrats have raised concerns about the deal being negotiated with other 11 Pacific countries, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying that it could worsen income inequality and allow private companies to challenge domestic financial regulations before an international tribunal. Those challenges, Warren and other critics argue, could undermine key financial, environmental and other regulations.

Obama disputed that was true during a town hall hosted by MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Tuesday.

"I love Elizabeth. We're allies on a whole host of issues, but she's wrong on this," Obama said. "When you hear folks make a lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is, when you dig into the facts, they are wrong."

While Obama criticized Warren for being wrong on the facts of the deal, it's difficult to know exactly what the deal contains because his administration has deemed the negotiations to be classified.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/obama-elizabeth-warren-tpp_n_7111524.html

[HereSince1628]

1. sorry this is a dupe

[Autumn]

4. Duplicates are permitted in GD

[a kennedy]

9. Sorry, I looked for it prior to posting it, and didn't seen anything about it....

sorry.

[Autumn]

2. Someone's wrong but it sure as hell isn't Liz.

[KoKo]

38. I thought the First Comment kind of said it all in reply on Huff Post:

Timothy Beauchamp · Top Commenter · University of Oklahoma · 1,311 followers

I like Obama on most issues, but Elizabeth Warren is correct. Period... If a politician isn't a Populist, in this day and age of income inequality, then I don't have a lot of use for them. Obama did a lot of good things but it is time for populism to take over the Democratic Party. Not only for the good of Americans but the good of the party.

[Autumn]

47. Yeah I like that one too.

[appalachiablue]

89. +100

[billhicks76]

41. Stop With The Secrecy Obama

He has no credibility when he makes the plan a secret. Does he think we are stupid? Totally disingenuous.

[L0oniX]

64. ^^^this^^^

[MissDeeds]

50. My thought too n/t

[frylock]

3. prove her wrong

[LordGlenconner]

6. Sounds like he's going to attempt to do just that

[frylock]

18. with words or with data?

[LordGlenconner]

100. Apparently with action

As in, I'm going to make this a reality and you will see that your opinion was wrong.

Point being, it would not appear her objections are having much of an impact on his opinion.

[bvar22]

110. THat is exactly what was said to those concerned about NAFTA.

The opposition to NAFTA turned out to be 100% correct.

Ross was Right,

but Bill was smoooooth.
Sadly, the Cult of Personality WON,
and it was downhill for the Working Class & Poor ever since.

[jwirr]

111. Glad to see you posting here. Got a few qustions about the protests in EU regarding the TTIP.

First what issues in the TTIP are they upset about?

Second where are they getting their information on the plan?

This would help us understand their actions better.

[Lil Missy]

12. Warren should prove Obama is wrong, she is the one making the claim it's wrong for America.

[frylock]

17. maybe they should release the details of the trade agreement..

prove. her. wrong.

[Jackpine Radical]

65. That approach is crazy.

First, we have NAFTA to look back at; second, there have been leaks that suggest that it is a highly destructive giveaway to the corporations, and third, I don't know Liz to have been wrong about anything as major as this. (OK, not in this century.)

[Joe Turner]

79. Warren proves Obama wrong every time she talks about TPP

Some people just don't want to hear the truth, despite all the broken promises of past free trade deals. The onus this time around is squarely on the promoters of this trade monstrosity to prove that TPP will live up to the promises. And that means vigorous debate in Congress and transparency. Why would any American be against that? Especially when you are talking about an agreement that would allow corporations to usurp U.S. regulations. How on earth can something like that be passed without any debate????

[JonLP24]

109. You're speaking the truth

When the Republicans agree with Obama you know we got a damn problem.

The "cleared advisers" are corporate lawyers & lobbyists. They know more about TPP than any of the politicians do but you can count on the Big Business Party to back anything that Big Business thinks is good for them.

I swear, people are closing their eyes to the truth. Frustrating.

[TBF]

124. That's on Obama - he's the one who has it marked classified.

What is he hiding?

[tularetom]

5. How the fuck are we supposed to know that since he won't tell us whats in it

I like the president and I want to believe him but all the secrecy tells me is that this thing would sink like a rock if we all knew the facts.

If she's wrong "on the facts", tell us what the facts are so we can see for ourselves.

[TDale313]

15. ^^^this^^^

The little we do know doesn't sound good, but most of what's in it we just don't know. And I'm sorry, while I support our President, "trust me" isn't nearly good enough on something this big, especially when American workers have been decimated by free trade deals in the past.

[treestar]

27. See below; plus then how does Elizabeth Warren know what's in it?

Or if she does, she should be subjected to the same standard. If it's secret, why does she not have to be transparent about how bad it is?

[dsc]

74. she didn't make the rules that made it secret

the President did. Thus the secrecy is his burden not hers.

[treestar]

95. If she knows should she not tell us?

Why not whistle blow? As a true hero would?

[bvar22]

128. If she did release the text,

she would either be in a solitary "no communication" cell like Chelsea Manning,
or in Moscow with Snowden.
Haven't you been paying attention?

[jwirr]

112. It is classified info. The congress cannot release the details.

[NanceGreggs]

7. " ... his administration has deemed the negotiations to be classified."

All such trade agreements are negotiated in secret.

The Obama administration has not "deemed the negotiations to be classified" - they are simply following the same process that all such treaties are subject to.

[Cha]

8. Mahalo for making that more clear, Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

11. Many of us ...

... have been trying to make that clear every time one of these "they're doing this in secret OMG!" posts come up.

But what IS clear is that some people just don't want the facts to interfere with their hair-on-fire routine.

[bvar22]

53. How have these classfied negotiations with LABOR, Enironmentalist,

...and Human Rights Activists worked out for the Working Class and the Environment?


Maybe we need to change something....... like secrecy & lock outs at the negotiations.
As a Working American, I'm damned tired of being screwed by the 1%er who put these "deals" together.


Or we a government OF the People,
or not?

What happened to President Transparency?

[NanceGreggs]

58. "President Transparency" ...

... is negotiating this treaty in the same way they've always been negotiated. And there are reasons for these things being done behind closed doors.

[Chan790]

75. If they cannot be done in the light of day...

then they should not be done. Full stop. End of Story.

If they cannot negotiate TPP/TPIP openly, that tells me right there that the President is wrong to be negotiating it at all...the only reason to negotiate it in secret and insist on fast-track is because it's a screwjob for the American public, Americans workers, Democracy and the environment.

[NanceGreggs]

81. Yeah, okay, whatever. n/t

[NobodyHere]

87. The US Constitution was negotiated in secret

Was that a screwjob on the American public?

[Dawgs]

97. Holy shit. Completely different and you know it. n/t

[bvar22]

115. At least representatives of the American People were in attendance.

Environmental Activists, Human Rights Activists, and reps of Working Americans have been locked out of the TPP Trade Negotiations.
They were THERE when the Constitution was written, and not the lobbyists for the IMF and Vulture Bankers.

Otherwise, this would be a very different country.

[Volaris]

162. It was if you weren't White, Male, and Landed. Not mad at you, but just sayin=)

[Jim Lane]

90. In that case he has no basis for smearing Elizabeth Warren

Anytime a really bad draft leaks, the Obama apologists here tell us that it's just a draft and we shouldn't breathe a word of criticism because the final proposal may be different.

Well, if we don't know for sure what will be in the final proposal, then neither does Obama. He doesn't have unilateral control over the negotiations.

As for the secrecy, that also means that he has no basis for his attack on Warren. It amounts to saying "I won't tell you what's in the deal but I will tell you that the critics are wrong." He can't have it both ways. If it's both secret and nonfinal, fine, those are the rules of this negotiation, but he can't start propagandizing for it yet.

By the way, has Obama or the USTR or anyone in a position to know gone on record denying the accuracy of the leaks that have occurred already?

[NanceGreggs]

91. Ah, now I see the problem.

Obama committed the cardinal sin (well, here on DU anyway) of saying that Elizabeth Warren was wrong on something - which, of course, constitutes "a smear".

But then the "smear" becomes "an attack" - because Elizabeth Warren can never, ever be wrong about anything. And suggesting that she is would, of course, be "an attack".

Have you ever seen any OPs/threads/posts about "mindless cheerleaders" who think Obama can do no wrong?

Just wonderin'.

[Jim Lane]

93. Total straw man argument.

You capably refuted the argument that Elizabeth Warren is infallible. Too bad for you that I didn't make that argument.

Now, turning to what I actually wrote -- I notice that you completely ignore it. I looked at the available information and pointed out that it's totally inadequate to support what Obama said. It was on that basis that I called his comment a smear.

You have elsewhere defended the secrecy of the negotiations. My point is that you can't have it both ways. If everything's a secret (because these deals are always done in secret) and no one knows what the final will look like and the horrible drafts that have been leaked are merely drafts and the last couple months of negotiations might completely change the work of more than four years -- BTW, all of these points have been made on DU in response to criticism of TPP and TPA -- then there's no basis for saying that the final TPP will benefit the middle class or improve workers' rights in Asian countries or do any other wonderful thing.

The secrecy and nonfinality can't be a one-way street. Supporters can't tout the advantages of the deal but then suppress any discussion of disadvantages on the basis of the arguments I listed above.

And all of that would be true if Elizabeth Warren had decided ten years ago to move to New Zealand and raise sheep. It's not about her personally or about Obama personally.

[NanceGreggs]

108. You're the one ...

... who immediately brought up Warren. Obama said she was wrong on TPP - you characterized that comment as a "smear" and an "attack". So your agenda was pretty blatantly clear.

I have not defended the secrecy of trade agreement negotiations; I have merely pointed out that they are all negotiated in secret, TPP not being an exception to the way it's always been done.

If you want to believe that Obama will sign-off on an agreement that will gut the middle class, decimate American workers, and hand the entire country over to corporations, that's your prerogative.

[bvar22]

119. I didn't believe Bill CLinton would do that either,

....but he did.

A cat will only jump on a hot stove once.
Obama is asking the American Worker to jump on the stove for the the 5th time.
(NAFTA, CAFTA, Colombian/Panama Free Trade, Korean Free Trade Deal)

NONE of these have worked out to better the lives of the American Worker.

The most recent Obama Free Trade Deal with Korea( the prototype for the TPP which contains much of the same language) promised a net increase of over 60,000 American Jobs and an improvement of the balance of trade.
BZZZZZTTTTT! WRONG.

This deal cost Americans Workers the the LOSS of over 60,000 jobs,
and the Balance of Trade INCREASED.

Why should we, as a nation, thrust ANY of these 1%ers to "negotiate" our Trade Deals.
They have gotten every single one WRONG so far,
unless the goal is to enrich the Golbal ELite,
THEN they are golden.

[Jim Lane]

134. About my agenda

You're apparently insinuating that my agenda was to make it personal, about Elizabeth Warren, and extol her. So, was I indeed "the one who immediately brought up Warren"? No. It was Obama who mentioned her by name. The HuffPo writer thought that Obama's mention of her was, literally, the headline from the interview.

My agenda is actually to have an informed discussion about TPP and TPA (and, down the road, TTIP). My main point was that Obama's statements in support of the agreement (statements couched by him as disagreement with Warren) were not justifiable on the current record, and could be shown to be not justifiable if judged by the same standards that his allies apply to criticism of the deal.

As for what I believe, I believe that the leaks that have occurred are far more likely than not to be accurate. I also believe that, if they are accurate at this late stage of negotiations, then the final agreement on those chapters will be exactly like or substantially similar to the leaked drafts. Finally, I believe that those provisions, if approved, would have major harmful effects, though I'd be disinclined to go along with the full force of the apocalyptic phrasing of your concluding paragraph.

Many of us give credence to the leaks. From that perspective, arguing for TPP based purely on trust in Obama amounts to saying, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"

[NanceGreggs]

141. What it actually comes down to is ...

... who I am NOT going to believe, on this or any other matter, and that's anonymous posters on a message board who have suddenly become self-styled "experts" on intern'l trade agreements and the intricacies of intern'l law.

Obama said he thinks Warren is wrong in her assessment of the TPP and its implications. It was a flat-out statement, not "couched" in the least.

Warren has said that she thinks Obama is wrong in his position. Does that constitute a "smear" or an "attack" on Obama? Seriously?

Trade agreements are extremely complex, and require expertise in their interpretation. I will not be relying on DUers for their "expert" opinions on this agreement, or anything else.

[Jim Lane]

144. On this subject you don't HAVE to rely on DUers for their "expert" opinions.

Links have been posted on DU conveying opinions from specialists who've studied the chapter(s) relevant to their fields:
AFL-CIO on labor issues
Sierra Club on environmental issues
Electronic Frontier Foundation on copyright issues
Medecins sans Frontieres on medical issues.

I may have forgotten one or two.

Links are available through the DU site search function. Alternatively, I'll do the work of searching and posting the links here, if you represent that you're sincerely interested and will go and read something that's critical of Obama, despite your evident admiration for him.

[NanceGreggs]

149. I unabashedly admire Obama.

He's accomplished a great deal, in the face of overwhelming odds.

That being said, I am still only interested in what experts in int'l trade agreements will have to say on the topic of the finalized TPP. This is not, IMHO, an area where "what we think it means" will suffice.

I will watch for your future links on the topic.

[Jim Lane]

150. I certainly don't regret having voted for him.

On several issues, I wish he were more progressive, but I never believed Rush Limbaugh's description of him as a radical leftist (if only), so he hasn't fallen hugely short of my expectations.

As for TPP, you're willing to look at statements in opposition made by experts who've reviewed the finalized TPP, but you appear ready to accept statements in support made before the agreement is finalized. I guess that disparate treatment is rational if you put a lot of weight on your admiration for Obama. I admire him, too, but not enough to apply such a double standard.

If TPA passes, the Congressional consideration of the agreement will be limited, but there will still be enough time for some spirited flame wars on DU. You will presumably get your wish and see opinions, pro and con, from experts who have analyzed the final agreement.

[NanceGreggs]

151. Hold it right there ...

"As for TPP, you're willing to look at statements in opposition made by experts who've reviewed the finalized TPP, but you appear ready to accept statements in support made before the agreement is finalized.

Where have I "appeared ready to accept statements in support made before the agreement is finalized."?

Thus far, I have "accepted" NO analysis, pro or con, from anyone. Nor will I until the finalized agreement is presented. And when it is, I will be most interested in expert analysis by those who are fully versed in intern'l trade law and such treaties - and not some blogger, some pundit, or some DUer.

Sorry for saying' so - but I am not about to defend statements I never made.

[Jim Lane]

159. If I misinterpreted your #91, I apologize.

The context: I pointed out an inconsistency. Criticisms of TPP on DU have often been met with the response that it's not yet final so criticisms are premature. Here, however, we have a statement in support of TPP although it's not yet final. If the same standard were being applied, then Obama's statement in support would be consigned to the same dustbin as the many statements in opposition that have been dismissed by some DUers.

In your response, you didn't agree with my pointing out that there was a double standard. Instead, you imputed to me a motive other than logical consistency. You strongly implied that the only reason I was disputing Obama's statement was that he had criticized Warren. You implied that my post was a knee-jerk reaction in defense of Warren personally, rather than being based on the merits.

The logical inference -- well, it seemed and still seems logical to me, anyway -- is that you accused me of having an ulterior motive because you did not think my stated reason was sound. That made it seem that you were accepting of pre-finalization statements of support.

If in fact you reject Obama's statement for the same reason that you reject all the pre-finalization criticisms, then you are being consistent. Your posts thus far have not made clear to me that you reject Obama's statement, but I would be happy to learn that you agree with me that even Obama cannot, at this stage, speak with complete certainty about what the final proposal will look like.

[Art_from_Ark]

155. Has this been mentioned on DU? "Labor groups protest against TPP"

According to this Japanese newspaper article, hundreds of people representing labor and other concerns protested against the TPP in Washington on April 20th.

環太平洋戦略的経済連携協定（ＴＰＰ）交渉の日米協議が最終局面に入るなか、ＴＰＰに反対するデモ行進が２０日、米ワシントン市内で行われた。
As negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between Japan and the United States enter the final phase, an anti-TPP demonstration was held in Washington, D.C. on the 20th.

デモ行進には労働組合関係者ら数百人が参加した。
Hundreds of people involved with labor unions and other concerns participated in the demonstration.

　米国の労働界は１９９４年発効の北米自由貿易協定（ＮＡＦＴＡ）など過去の自由貿易協定が製造業の海外流出につながったなどと主張してきた。ＡＦＬ－ＣＩＯは３月、ＴＰＡ法案の審議を見極めるため、全議員に対する政治献金を凍結すると表明し、ＴＰＡ法案への反対を促している。
American labor groups maintain that past free trade agreements such as NAFTA that went into effect in 1994 have led to such things as manufacturing industries moving overseas. In order to ascertain discussions on the TPA bill, in March the AFL-CIO announced a freeze on political contributions to all members of Congress and is continuing to oppose the TPA bill.

http://www.sankeibiz.jp/macro/news/150422/mca1504220500003-n1.htm

[Jim Lane]

158. Thanks for the info!

I don't remember seeing that demo mentioned before. There've been some posts about the activism by the AFL-CIO and its head, Richard Trumka -- they've jumped into the battle with both feet.

[bvar22]

117. Complete Strawman from a tortured imagination.

You know better.

[NanceGreggs]

130. I didn't raise the "strawman" ...

... of Warren being "smeared" and "attacked" by Obama.

[bvar22]

132. Your argument is still a Srawman.

It doesn't matter if you are the very first person to use it,
or you stole it from someone else,
it is STILL an obvious Strawman, and you KNOW better.

This kind of Strawman is why LIES can travel around the World
before the truth gets its shoes on.

[Dawgs]

98. They were wrong before and they're wrong now.

They always did it that way is never a good excuse.

[NanceGreggs]

106. There are reasons for agreements ...

... being done this way. It has nothing to do with "excuses".

[bvar22]

118. YEs. There ARE reasons,

and those reasons are not very noble
nor do they benefit the Working Class of the World.


Must be nice to be above it all.
I'm still waiting for my "High Paying" NAFTA job.

[TheKentuckian]

139. And we always get fucked over so *always* isn't very compelling or attractive.

The reasons revolve around leading the sheep to the slaughter with minimal fuss.

[NanceGreggs]

142. Believe what you will. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

145. Has nothing to do with what I will. Pure observation. Do you have some argument that these deals

haven't screwed over our workers?

[NanceGreggs]

147. Believe what you will.

I am not inclined to argue with your assumptions; they are, in the great scheme of things, of no consequence whatsoever.

Believe what people on the internetz say about the TPP - because they're all experts in international law and trade agreements.

Believe that Obama is out to screw the American worker, because that's been his agenda all along.

Believe whatever you want to believe. It has nothing to do with me, or with anything else.

[TheKentuckian]

148. As predicted, you have no argument that these "free trade" deals have not been harmful

so instead we are treated to trying to blame me.

I didn't negotiate, author, or support any of these toxic "free trade" deals I'm just stating the fact that they are a screw job. If you think they aren't then state your case but of course we know you don't have one so that leaves you with a bunch of senseless drivel and bizarre finger pointing. What a fucking joke.

I will go further and add that it is the exact same con with the same rhetoric every time with the exact same "stakeholders" drafting and drooling over the mess. The multinationals, the Chamber of Commerce, and a bunch of Republican crooks ever looking to reduce us to serfs.

[ChiciB1]

83. WE ARE NOT A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE!!

And yes, WE ARE GETTING SCREWED, more and more and more! For me, I see no end nor ANY help! Yes, I'm really ranting away, but I'm so mad and hurt I can't see straight! I've tried to deal with so much for so long and I'm totally lost and my head is buzzing!

Thought it was a dream, but now know it's a NIGHTMARE! I'm cooked!

[jwirr]

113. Our hair is not on fire. Nor do we want the details of the negotiations. We want access to the plan

he is asking our representatives to vote on and we want it BEFORE the vote. I am assuming from you post you do not want to know what is in the plan?

[NanceGreggs]

137. I have said repeatedly ...

... that I don't know what it's the finalized agreement. And neither does anyone else here - despite claims by many that they have read the "leaks", and fully understand the intricacies of international trade law so that they are in a position to opine on its provisions and how they will work.

Those who have not supported Obama all along will tell you that this agreement is going to destroy the country. Those who have supported Obama are taking a wait-and-see stance and/or trust Obama to do the right thing for everyone.

It's just another food-fight that posters on message boards love to engage in - and the "facts" are lost somewhere in the fray.

I can tell you this: When the final treaty is revealed, I will not be looking to DU for an "interpretation" of its full force and effect. I will leave the explanations to experts in the field of int'l trade agreements, not self-styled "experts" on a message board.

[cali]

13. you are wrong. the process of negotiation is NOT exactly the same

for all trade agreements. Who has access to text, who has input, vary. Quite a bit has been written about how these negotiations have been particularly secretive.

[NanceGreggs]

14. I didn't say that the process is always "exactly the same".

I said these treaties are negotiated in secret.

[cali]

19. TO VARYING DEGREES. The secrecy around negotiations for the TPP has been

significantly greater. that's been widely reported.

saying they're all done in secret implies it's the same process. Wrong.

Do you realize who opposes this? Not just Congressional dems, but groups as varied as NRDC, Sierra Club, Unions, Medecins sans Frontiere, the NY AG, Nobel winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, several state dem parties and many more.

Who supports it aside from congressional repubs? Corporations, lobbyists, groups representing corporations, certain trade groups, groups like grover norquist's club for growth.

[bvar22]

120. You forgot me!!!

bvar22 also opposes these American Job Killing "Free Trade Deals" too!

[cali]

140. and bvar. of course! how remiss of me.

[Jim Lane]

146. Yeah, but you're an anonymous online commenter, so you don't count.

Only those of us who post under our real names count.

[treestar]

26. People are constantly doing this re Obama

OMG! the horrors, and then we find they've always done it that way.

[NanceGreggs]

32. Exactly.

I remember the outrage here a few years ago when Obama "arrogantly and arbitrarily" declared May 1st to be "Loyalty Day" ...

... except that President Eisenhower proclaimed May 1, 1955, the first observance of Loyalty Day, and every president since has observed it as such.

[bvar22]

121. You are WRONG again.

You were corrected in Post 13 by Cali.

Would you like to hear what I have to say about people who knowingly post bad information at DU?

[NanceGreggs]

131. Trade treaties are always negotiated ...

... in secret. That's the way they're done.

If you're concerned with people posting "bad information", you might want to discuss that with those who have insisted that the TPP is exceptional in that regard, or those who insisted that the entire agreement wouldn't be disclosed for four years - and that's just for starters.

[bvar22]

133. I don't work for you.

Here you have committed another Logical Fallacy called "False Equivalency".
The Secrecy provisions surrounding the TPP are NOTHING like the "secrecy" you claim in your (really forced) False Equivalency.

[Dawgs]

99. "Always done it that way" doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it's a good deal.

And, 'trust me' should NEVER be used by any politician when talking about legislation that's this important.

[freshwest]

71. But Congress will know when they vote. And fast track doesn't meant they must approve it.

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 08:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Fast track only means no added amendments made by the Senate, IOW, changes to the written agreement the signatories didn't agree to, so this is a basic logic fail.

Boo fucking hoo, they can't amend the words of others, but they can say No if they want. Get out the fire extinguishera and put the fire out, burnt hair stinks.

The reason for no amendments or fast tracking is the other nations involved are not in the Senate, HELLO? They'd have no say to what could disadvantage them for years, how is that an honest deal for them?

This is media brainwashing just like Iran negotiations were. Because... Obama can't be trusted, sn't smart enough, is a traitor and he's not a real American! Give it a rest!

The completed treaty that the Senate has the last word on would be their last chance for nations to have input, you can't change what they agreed to without starting again.

The Senate can vote the treaty up or down. Most of the uproar is ignorance of basic civics.

Would any of us sign onto something that will impact us for years and have a third party jump in after we've signed unto and change the rules?

Hell no. This is what the tempest in the fast track TPP Teapot is.

Everytime I read this dreckt, the shrieks of brain cells committing suicide in despair at this fatal lack of comprehension, steeped in Bircher compost tea, are so loud, I can barely hear my inner voice.

Oh, and what you said on it being classified is right. If it's spewed all over the place, different nations or organizations will pay off others to make it favor them. Does the term industrial espionage ring a bell with anyone?

Thanks Nance. I'd appreciate your opinion on my comment, or whatever you may add to it or detract from it.

[NanceGreggs]

85. Well, all I can add is this ...

These types of trade agreements are always negotiated in secret - for a myriad of reasons. The "why is THIS agreement being negotiated in secret!!!?!?" posters have been told this repeatedly, but they still insist that the secrecy is something new and unprecedented - and therefore a clear signal of nefarious goings-on behind closed doors.

In order to believe the ravings of the Hair on Fire Brigade, I have to also believe that Barack Obama has spent the last six-plus years building an enviable legacy of positive achievement - from Obamacare, to the ending of two wars, to supporting the rights of gays/lesbians, etc. - only to eventually destroy the American worker, decimate the middle class, and hand the entire nation over to corporations.

Well, I find that to be more than a bit of a stretch.

Obama's motive in selling his entire nation down the river? I've yet to hear one - unless going down in history as the most vilified American citizen (no less president) was Obama's goal all along.

[Jamaal510]

154. Strange that

Fast track only means no added amendments made by the Senate, IOW, changes to the written agreement the signatories didn't agree to, so this is a basic logic fail.

Boo fucking hoo, they can't amend the words of others, but they can say No if they want. Get out the fire extinguishera and put the fire out, burnt hair stinks.

The reason for no amendments or fast tracking is the other nations involved are not in the Senate, HELLO? They'd have no say to what could disadvantage them for years, how is that an honest deal for them?

I haven't hear this on the Ed Show. I think Ed's (and others) intentions are good, but they might be jumping to conclusions on this topic. It wouldn't be Ed's first time doing this, though.
This site needs more posts like yours that explain policies and tactics more thoroughly.

[freshwest]

157. Partly it's the rush for time to respond to stories, need to get ratings, and failing to reflect.

99% of what's posted ionline is taken from pundits, articles, etc. I have questions I ask myself when I read a headline and the stories.

First, what is my first reaction, what does my gut say - and why was it written that way?

Second, I remind myself that gut feeling are emotional responses, and sometimes the way they got into my gut, aren't rational. And they are often manipulated by applying the pyramid of needs.

Third, I go on the basis of what I know about the processes being remarked upon with such fervor.

That is, elections, majorities, bills, amendments, the separation of power and the limits, and think of the reasons for the bill, and the media blurb that has just been put out there for me to digest.

It really takes the drama away, but I also know, humans love drama and tend to follow the crowd. No matter how hard they shriek they are such pure individualists, or the member of some group they consider superior to others, they are following a crowd. It's nothing to be ashamed of unless their howling at the Moon hurts others.

Did they follow them on the basis of a need for themselves, or for others, as a knee jerk response, or unresolved emotional issues they have cloaked in loaded words and terms to make them justified? Or just from the sheer wreariness of resisting, or knowing there's safety in numbers even if they are illogical?

I've seen people yelling 'yeah, yeah! that's right!' on the most ridiculous subject matter, things that they would never want to see upclose and personal or know nothing about the background of, and the potential harm. And that are nihilistic, anti-social, and not solving anything.

(Pardon my run-on sentences, but at times one holds all the thought threads at once and weaves them together. It's difficult to separate them, especially if one sees them as all equal in effect.)

Fourth, I join with any knowledge I have what I've seen work and not work for the most elements, keeping people alive and letting them be free to choose, no matter what is being hyped as the new and cool thing. As we've seen that some of that is half a century or even centuries old and useless, if not dangerous to the life and limb of others. People love to be in a cult, I've seen one or two new religions spring up on DU. I won't list them because saying anything scientific or real world is, like speaking against profit, blasphemy.

Fifth, and nearly last, with my apologies as I tend to ramble as I've actually got my mind busy on a few other things as I am typing, I look to who is paying for the stories being put before us. They are designed to make us cheer or be angry or feel despair.

Who is the paymaster of the speaker? I've seen people act shocked, I tell you, shocked!!! that their media heroes interview RWNJs, warmongers, people with anti-social and anti-life agendas.

This goes to who is paying for the infrastructure of the news. That is a lot of money there, and these people are very well-paid for what they do. But there are only about a half dozen owners of just about everything we see or hear. From commericals, to music, to television and movies, there is an agenda. To waste our time, to get us to vote a certain way* or think a certain way, to accept certain things. The media is a subdivison of other business interests.

They tell their employees who they will interview, give them a bit of leeway to bring people in of opposing viewpoints. This is exactly what Koch said he would do when he lost his run for the office of POTUS in 1980. The voters didn't like his platform his ideas, maybe even him. So he said he would work his way through media, universities and all the organs of influence to get people to think his way. Think of Rush 's motto - that he would keep on talking until everyone thought just like him - in other words, become Dittoheads. With total saturation of many markets, he is still doing this daily. The reports of his demise due to boycotts are great exaggerated. Not that the boycotts haven't had an effect. But as Dick Armey said as he left Freedom Works, one of the Koch front groups, the Koch brothers were paying him. He didn't depend on advertising, and the losses from that didn't affect him, but played havoc with the radio stations he was on, having bought a large block of time every day and his spiel was re-run all day on the weekends.

Alex Jones, who's fawned over Reagan, the John Birch Society, Ron and now Rand Paul, also 'really likes' Ted Cruz. And this is who people believe is telling them TheTruth©!!! and tells them that anyone who disagrees, is part of the problem. His disdain for Democrats as what he calls 'Fabian socialists,' his call for Libertarians to infiltrate Occupy as they were speaking against the sacred cow of capitalism, and his inability to utter 'Democrat' without a curled up sneer, is not objective, yet is making converts. Just as Rush said Democrats should be hunted down with dogs, there is no way to negotiate with the cult.

All of these people are being paid, and handsomely. Those who have joined the cult and speak against the 1% or TPTB, are still enabling the same when they paradoxically disenfranchise themselves and care nothing for the civil rights, as they only care about civii libertarianism, which protected the rights of women and people of color - NEVER. Yet we are the majority.

Thus their solutions are to disrupt those they don't respect, to keep that power for themselves. While Ed seems to be a great guy, he's kept on a short leash. They all are. If they won't stay on it, they will be fired, but not before being thoroughly villified so that their former fans find fault with their personality, their auxiliary views, or their words, never seeing that in so doing, they are themselves aiding the 1% with their cult.

Sixth, now I have to go, sorry I can't finish this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. Not the same process

Yet the actual text of the agreement remains under lock and key. That represents a significant break from the Bush administration, which in 2001 published the text of a proposed multinational trade agreement with Latin American nations.

“It is incomprehensible to me that leaders of major corporate interests who stand to gain enormous financial benefits from this agreement are actively involved in the writing of the TPP, while at the same time, the elected officials of this country, representing the American people, have little or no knowledge of what’s in it,” wrote U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in a letter to Froman last month.

Sanders’ office confirms that congressional lawmakers are permitted to view the text of the agreement only in the Trade Representative’s office, without their own staff members or experts present. They are not allowed to take copies of the agreement back to Capitol Hill for deeper, independent evaluation.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/06/the_depressing_explanation_why_the_trans_pacific_partnership_is_being_kept_secret_partner/

Sen. Sanders letter: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/letter-to-united-states-trade-representative?inline=file

The push for fast-track legislation comes as concerns about transparency in trade deals reach a fever pitch. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said in January that the fast-track bill "puts Congress in the driver’s seat to define our negotiating objectives and strengthens congressional oversight." But unlike past free trade agreements, only a handful of congressional staffers on key committees have access to the full text of the TPP. Rank-and-file members of Congress have very limited access to the TPP, being able to take only limited notes and having to schedule in advance an opportunity to view the text. Many members of Congress have been up in arms about the lack of transparency, including Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the lead sponsors of the fast-track legislation. Wyden has criticized the administration for a lack of transparency, particularly around intellectual property issues.

http://www.ibtimes.com/fast-track-authority-president-4-key-facts-about-proposed-trans-pacific-partnership-1888879

[bvar22]

129. ..ANd Senator Sanders shoots down...

.....all the bullshit posts in this thread.

Well Done, Senator.

[bvar22]

114. If, as you say, ALL trade treaties are negotiated in secret,

no wonder they have all been so BAD for the American Worker.

[underahedgerow]

161. Yes, heaven forbid that massive trade deals are negotiated in confidence. You know, like they always

are as in '"some measure of discretion and confidentiality" are needed "to preserve negotiating strength and to encourage our partners to be willing to put issues on the table they may not otherwise'.

I have every confidence that President Obama continues to work in the best interests of the US Government and the Citizens of the USA as he has done for well, pretty much his entire life.

Like I always say, it's easier for most people to be against something rather than for something. Armchair quarterbacking.

[cali]

10. lol. and Merkely is wrong and Schumer is wrong and Sanders is wrong and

Van Hollen is wrong and the entire Progressive caucus is wrong. Also several state democratic parties, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org, the NY State Attorney General, Unions, and on an on, but he won't mention that only a handful of dems in the House support him or that his allies are the republicans and Club for Growth and corporations and lobbyists that represent them.

If he did, he'd just show viewers how at odds he is with the democratic party. bad optics

[neverforget]

16. Funny how he doesn't mention that

I wonder why? Because corporations and Republicans don't give a shit about the working class or the environment, just the bottom line.

[Mnpaul]

21. and Levin(just heard him on a local show)

Unfortunately, the Hatch-Wyden-Ryan Trade Promotion Authority does not move us toward a stronger TPP agreement that will garner broad, bipartisan support in Congress,” Rep. Levin said in the document. “TPP is not where it needs to be right now, and Hatch-Wyden-Ryan does nothing to change that. On all of the major issues in the negotiations, the negotiating objectives are obsolete or woefully inadequate. We can’t expect to get the best deal if we are not asking for the right things. The Hatch-Wyden-Ryan TPA gives up Congressional leverage at the exact wrong time. Instead of pressing USTR to get a better agreement or signaling to our negotiating partners that Congress will only accept a strong agreement, the Hatch-Wyden-Ryan TPA puts Congress in the back seat and greases the skids for an up-or-down vote after the fact. Real Congressional power is not at the end of the process, it is right now when the critical outstanding issues are being negotiated.”
http://levin.house.gov/press-release/levin-tpa-bill-major-step-backwards-tpp-negotiations

[cali]

23. hey, thanks

[Mnpaul]

24. I wish that I had the whole interview

Levin went into good detail. Democrats are trying to put stronger labor protections into the bill as well as other modifications. The host made an important point as well: once passed this law is there forever and the only way out is for all the countries involved agreeing to withdraw from the treaty. There is no: "fixing it later".

On edit:found the interview
https://soundcloud.com/am950s-best-interviews/the-daily-report-us-rep-sanderlevin-fast-track-421

[KoKo]

52. ...!

[tavernier]

69. A bit off topic but...

I sure will miss Jon Stewart doing his Levin impression. 😥

[treestar]

29. Does he have to agree when the list reaches a certain number?

The President disagrees with those people on this thing.

I have to agree with everything the Sierra Club wants or I'm anti-environment?

[stillwaiting]

78. The TPP is not one thing.

It encompasses much, much more than trade, and it will have consequences on many different industries and areas of our lives.

The TPP is MANY things. It's shocking how many groups oppose the TPP.

[KoKo]

40. Well Said........!

Trying to say "All Trade Agreements are negotiated in secret" is totally a Strawman. Not giving links to back up and requiring others to spend their time searching which they won't read anyway....but will do a counter post not even addressing the links..just "restating" their Original Opinion.

[99Forever]

20. Prove it.

Join the long line of people saying Warren was wrong and then getting their words fed right back to them.

[winter is coming]

22. That's a statement likely to bite him in the ass. n/t

[bvar22]

25. Classic Disagreement between an anti-LABOR "moderate Republican from the 80s",

....and a DEMOCRAT representing today's Working Class & Poor.




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[KoKo]

42. ...!

[Octafish]

28. ''Conspiracy Theorists.''

So NAFTA sending jobs overseas and wealth to the Top One Percent was just a coincidence.



Obama Blasted for Lumping Critics of Trade Deal Secrecy with 'Conspiracy Theorists'

'If the president is concerned that people don't know what's going on in the negotiations then the president should release the text and remove it from being a state secret.'

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer
Published on Friday, May 2, 2014 by Common Dreams

Critics of the highly-secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations responded with outrage after U.S. President Barack Obama charged they have a "lack of knowledge of what is going on in the negotiations" and dismissed their concerns as "conspiracy theories."

The president made the comments this week during a press conference in Malaysia—one of the stops on his Asia-Pacific tour, aimed at advancing the TPP and the U.S. military "pivot" to the region. His tour has been met with region-wide protests against the economic and military agenda of the U.S.

SNIP...

Bernadette Ellorin, Chairperson of BAYAN-USA—an alliance of Filipino organizations in the U.S., told Common Dreams, "President Obama lacks knowledge of how so-called 'free trade agreements' impact people on the ground. The push-back he has gotten over the TPP comes from people who have long-suffered from these impacts."

"He should go back and talk with the parent-less children in the region, whose parents had no choice but to look for work overseas because they couldn't find work in their own country due to these so-called 'free trade' agreements," she added. "He should go back and talk to the indigenous children whose parents were killed by paramilitary groups because greater foreign investment stipulations in these agreements have led to forced evacuations and militarization of their land for the purpose of large scale foreign mining."

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/02-5

Cass Sunstein must be right: The United States government is incapable of lying or doing anything criminal because they make the laws.

[Hoyt]

30. I hope she's wrong, and not purposely spreading the junk. My favorite recently is

Warren says she's looked at the DETAILS of the SECRET agreement..

Well, then, it must not be a secret.

[still_one]

33. Can you explain the details in simple terms? Are their enforcement protections built in, and other

safe guards for working conditions, environmental concerns, etc.

I don't know. I am asking?

[Hoyt]

46. Yes, you have to read several sources including the negotiating text, USTR site, Obama explanations,

etc.. You can do a little research now, or wait for the final text which will be released at least 60 days before Obama endorses it, assuming he does.

[KoKo]

55. Outraged Sherrod Brown: 12 Hours Notice for Hearings, Secret Meetings, Staff Not Able to View TPP.

Outraged Sherrod Brown: 12 Hours Notice for Hearings, Secret Meetings, Staff Not Able to View TPP. How is This Democracy?

Published on Apr 16, 2015

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown questioning United States Trade Representative Michael Froman at the April 16, 2015 Finance Committee Hearing examining Trade Promotion Authority.

to DU'er: "Cheese Sandwich" for the Video Link:

[Hoyt]

72. Brown, whom I really like when he's not playing politics, shouldn't have waited to the last minute

to check some facts. He could have long ago.

[TheKentuckian]

143. Yeah it is Brown and Warren lying and Ryan, McConnell, Paul, the Chamber of Commerce,

and the Rubinites are telling the truth. Sure they all told the same shit about all the previous screw jobs but this time they are who we should be trusting this time.

Your arguments are hollow nonsense but of course it seems your biggest problem with past "free trade" deals is that American workers didn't get screwed over enough so I'm left to believe you are just in with the vulture class.

[bvar22]

56. Wrong.

Senators and Congressmen are allowed to view "secret documents" under a binding non disclosure agreement.
IT is STILL "secret".

[Hoyt]

73. No it's not, you can look it up yourself. If true, she's not doing a very good job keeping

it secret. She too, is playing politics. Probably learned it as a Republican.

[still_one]

31. This is the problem. The deal was done in secret, and because of that glances are obtained from

leaked sources.

The questions I would ask would be, why is this being fast-tracked, and why aren't the details and enforcement of the TPP widely known if they are so good or bad so they can be debated?

[elehhhhna]

34. what fucking facts? the secret facts? oh, trust me, he said, I'm a liberal he said.

[yourout]

35. The fact that they want to do it fast and secret tells me everything I need to know..

No, No, a thousand times No.

[lovemydog]

36. Right now I am opposed to TPP.

I also love Elizabeth Warren and the unions and progressives who oppose it.

I will listen carefully to President Obama's arguments in favor of it.

If and when he spells out the facts that support his argument.

[yourout]

39. I wish a reporter would ask him.."How is TPP different from NAFTA which decimated our....

manufacturing sector?"

[lovemydog]

45. Me too. I would like to see him give a speech as to why he's in favor,

or better yet, a one-hour debate with Elizabeth Warren specifically on this issue.

[nationalize the fed]

48. Funny how both Obama AND Clinton knew how bad NAFTA was

in 2007/8

Clinton at 18:18 "NAFTA was a MISTAKE"

Obama at ~21:00 "I'd call the presidents of Mexico and Canada...to renegotiate"

[florida08]

43. Given that

this is the only issue that republicans agree with them on and he needs them to get it passed I would venture the guess that Obama is wrong. Alan Grayson called it a betrayal and he's read a lot of it.

[dflprincess]

82. And the fact the Republicans like this and agree with the president

Should be the first clue that something is very wrong with the TPP

[SoapBox]

49. Sorry Mr. President...

You are the one wrong on this.

[emsimon33]

51. Obama who put Monsanto in charge of overseeing our food

and Goldman Saks to oversee financial issues!

I would trust an outhouse rat before I would trust Obama on issues that impact the economic well being of 98% of the American people!

Obama is just another Third Way, Neo-Liberal who, when pushed, makes to right decisions on most social issues.

[SidDithers]

70. ...

Sid

[emsimon33]

92. You need to put down the weed and keep current

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/20/newly-leaked-ttip-draft-reveals-far-reaching-assault-useu-democracy

[LordGlenconner]

103. Yeah, I remember my first beer too, kid

Tip: pace yourself.

[bigwillq]

54. I stand with Sen. Warren (nt)

[sendero]

57. I'm sure Obama...

... has convinced himself that this is a good deal. I'm also pretty sure his thought process is something along the lines of "American workers are going to get #%^&ed in the ass no matter what, at least this provides a bit of lube".

That's where we are folks, the .1% run the show and no politician even dares to challenge them in any way. You got your first clue when Obama decided that no bankers would be prosecuted for crimes so blatant and provable a 10 year old could understand them.

[Skittles]

59. "TRUST ME"

and many DUers are naive enough to do just that

[libdem4life]

60. Here's your chance, Elizabeth, now you've not only got the banksters in your sight, but

the President. He's running a bit scared to call her out by name. Let him prove it. Senators are beginning to back off, State Atty Generals are not liking it, this may be a battle he can't win?????

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. One of the things I seem to recall him saying to Tweety was to

look at everything he's done in office, to show that he's focused on making things better for the middle class.

Problem is, when you look at the actual RESULTS, rather than his stated intent, you see more Americans in poverty than before, a smaller percentage of Americans in the workforce, and an 'economic recovery' in which 93% of the recovery went to the 1%er types, while the rest of us have shed accumulated wealth. The President may have all the good will in the world towards the rest of us, but the practical outcomes of his deals with republicans and blue dogs have left the rest of us falling even further behind, while the richest of the rich own ever more of the country.

That doesn't bode well for him making yet another deal, and a massive one, with Republicans, corporate lobbyists, and austerity types all on his side against the people who actually speak for labour.

[840high]

80. +1

[GoneFishin]

62. Let's see. Who is keeping it secret, and who wants to examine it out in the open?

His dishonesty is becoming more and more blatant.

[zipplewrath]

63. Convince her

Convince her, and a few others with vastly better progressive credentials than he, and he might be surprised how opposition melts. But this is the guy that didn't get the PO, and then said it wasn't necessary. This is the guy that decided on a stimulus package that was too small by at least half, and still won't admit it. This is the guy that was warned on Gulf drilling and the dangers thereof and told us it was fine.

He's a bit short on the whole "trust me" thang.

[Dont call me Shirley]

66. I'm sorry Mr President, history of these trade agreements says you are wrong on TPP.

[NorthCarolina]

67. I watched as he dredged out the same argument I've heard before

in connection with other "trade deals" under Clinton wherein, "with this deal, US automakers will be able to sell their product in Japan which is now a locked market". NOT. I've worked in Japan on several occasions and have ASKED why they don't buy US made automobiles and the primary reasons given are (1) They are typically too big for their roads. You are not going to ply the streets of Tokyo in an SUV or a Buick because the roads are simply too narrow. Anyone who has ever visited Japan, and Island nation where real estate is in limited supply, knows this to be true. Their streets are very narrow and larger vehicles are simply not practical. (2) They drive on the opposite side of the road and most US automakers do not make accommodation for this by switching the driver/passenger spaces around on all but a very few vehicles.

This trade deal, nor any other trade deal, will change things in that regard.

It's all another whitewash...Obama says "trust me". Clinton said, trust me too. Is Obama more trustworthy than Clinton? I doubt it. Peas in a pod.

[cheapdate]

68. Not the first question the president and I have disagreed over. Such is life.

[morningfog]

76. Referring to her as an ally on a whole host of issues just makes

her an "other." Shouldn't a leading liberal voice of the Democratic Party and the Democratic President be more than "allies."

[Doctor_J]

77. says the most corporate president in history.

Anyone else think he's ready to give up the pretense of being a democrat?

[Koinos]

84. Finally shows his true colors.

And they're not blue.

[BreakfastClub]

86. Obama has ALWAYS been a very moderate democrat. He is actually slightly

to the right. I don't know where anyone got the idea that he was a hardcore liberal. There's nothing to support that assumption.

[JustAnotherGen]

101. The Republicans Said so

During the 2008 election - brouhaha over being the most Liberal Senator ever from those ninnies.

They also accuse him of being BOTH a communist and a socialist.

You can't make this shit up!

[TBF]

125. That doesn't excuse his behavior. nt

[AgingAmerican]

88. But he can't say why...

...cuz it's all top secrety and stuff...

Doh!

[ucrdem]

96. The TPP is about as secret as the square root of one.

If Warren and Sanders can't be bothered to spend ten minutes perusing any of the many hundreds of State Dept docs and transcripts available onine, not to mention regularly leaked chapters going back to 2011, that's on them.

[bvar22]

126. ARe you trying to imply that Warren and Sanders...

...have NOT done their due diligence and studied what has been made available to them?

That is an unsupported attack,
and completely out of character with the two you attacked.


Please provide some support for your "argument",
because I won't Take YOUR word for it.

[PoliticAverse]

102. Followup: Warren responds

Excerpt:

"The Administration says I’m wrong – that there’s nothing to worry about. They say the deal is nearly done, and they are making a lot of promises about how the deal will affect workers, the environment, and human rights. Promises – but people like you can’t see the actual deal."

See her entire response here: http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/you-cant-read-this

[brentspeak]

104. But the GOP, the Heritage Foundation,

the US Chamber of Commerce, and Fox News is "right".

Thanks for making it clear to us, Obama.

[Smarmie Doofus]

105. How about taking it to the people ?

If she's "wrong on the facts" he should have no problem demonstrating that fact . And since they are friends ( and this is IMPOR
TANT) she shouldn't mind his demonstrating this to our satisfaction.

A televised debate ( or "public forum&quot is in order.

I think the ball is in Mr. Obama's court.

[bvar22]

138. WOW??!!!!

You must believe we are living in a Democracy that NEEDS an informed electorate or something.

How quaint.

[JonLP24]

107. TPPA makes Malaysia liable for foreign firms’ losses, new leak show

KUALA LUMPUR, March 26 — A new leak of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement's (TPPA) investment chapter confirms fears that the trade deal will make signatory nations including Malaysia vulnerable to legal action by companies from partner countries.

In the latest release by whistle-blower organisation WikiLeaks, the TPPA would infuse private corporations of partner countries with special rights and standing to sue other governments for unlimited damages if laws detrimental to their profits are passed.

Additionally, the leaked chapter dated January 20 retained the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) that would allow companies to haul governments before a supranational tribunal for any losses — both present and future — suffered as a result of a country's legislation or legal decisions.

"The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliamentary and judicial sovereignty.

“Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies,” WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange said in a statement accompanying the release.

Such disputes would be arbitrated similarly to the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which previously awarded US$1.8 billion (RM6.6 bilion) to Occidental Petroleum from the government Ecuador despite acknowledging that the firm violated the terms of agreement.

Previous leaks of the TPPA showed that a key stumbling block was the refusal of the US to yield on the contentious ISDS clause of the agreement, which critics contend would open signatory states to legal action by private corporations if any law is deemed harmful to a firm’s commercial interests.
- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/tppa-makes-malaysia-liable-for-foreign-firms-losses-new-leak-show#sthash.GuX6KRN4.dpuf

Malaysia has a thriving manufacturing sector, there have been many protests in the country against TPP as well as many of the other nations on the list. Its a bad deal for all of us except the corporations. Think. Apply some common sense, do I have to mention the "giant sucking sound"?

TPP makes no economic sense

Essentially, it’s a US-Japan bilateral trade treaty that might complement the US-Japan security treaty.

KUALA LUMPUR: The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) appears essentially to be coming down to a US-Japan bilateral trade treaty that might complement the US-Japan security treaty, according to Forbes in a comment piece.

<snip>

“There’s very little in terms of synergies and very few prospects of finding them in the foreseeable future. The needs of developing countries would be much better served by concluding the WTO Doha Development Round.”

Furthermore, it added, the architects of the post-World War II trade régime sought to de-geo-politicise trade. “It is probably impossible to do so completely. TPP, however, is highly geopolitical and highly geopolitically divisive.”

<snip>

The conventional view that TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is about Europe, TPP is about Asia was also wrong.

TPP was a really strange mélange of 12 members including five from the Americas (Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and the US), five from Asia (Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam), along with Australia and New Zealand.

Missing are large Asian economies, notably South Korea, India and Indonesia, all three members of the G20.

Also missing of course is China; but that would seem to be deliberate, the economic arsenal of Washington’s (supposedly) strategic pivot to Asia, the fundamental aim of which is to contain China. “Thus TPP is above all a geopolitical ploy with trade as a decoy,” said Forbes.

This was the subject addressed in a publication by the Malay Economic Action Council (MTEM) entitled, “TPP – Malaysia is not for sale”. It includes a foreword by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad who does not mince his words when he states that “the strongest campaigner of TPP is America … [which seeks] … to contain China and to safeguard its own economic interests [by] exploiting all resources from small but growing independent nations such as Malaysia”.

He adds that “TPP is not a fair or free trade partnership, but an agreement to tie down nations with rules and regulations that would only benefit American conglomerates”. Furthermore, Mahathir pointed out, the negotiations are occurring entirely in secret, thereby adding to the suspicion that it is a conspiracy.

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/04/10/tpp-makes-no-economic-sense/

So many posts "prove its wrong" or the onus is on Elizabeth Warren. Pay attention and read her damn statements, the only arguments I say in favor of it are political arguments -- not economic arguments.

UAW, Dems rally against TPP trade agreement

Toledo — Cori Lortz’s father, an American union worker, opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s. Now, more than 20 years later, she finds herself fighting against another trade policy: the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“I saw how NAFTA destroyed my dad’s livelihood and I don’t want it to happen to me,” she said Monday at UAW Local 12 in Toledo. Lortz said her father, Larry Middlebrooks, lost his job at a packaging company after operations moved to Mexico as a result of NAFTA.

<snip>

At the UAW’s 2015 Special Bargaining Convention in Detroit last week President Dennis Williams said foreign governments that manipulate currency and put up barriers to imports in their own countries present new challenges to the economy.

“No one can afford to get this one wrong,” he said. “Our government cannot negotiate another bad trade agreement.”

Ford Motor Co. also has spoken out against TPP because it does not take a hard enough stance on currency manipulation and other issues.

Currency manipulation, also known as exchange rate intervention, is when a country uses its own currency and buys up foreign reserves like the U.S. dollar, weakening its own currency. A weak currency cheapens the price of a country’s exports, making them more attractive to international buyers by undercutting competitors.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/03/30/uaw-trade-policy-american-workers/70693748/


Essentially the TPP is lassez-faire, trickle-down, top-down, supply side, "shock therapy", whatever you want to call it. People who argue its good for the American worker or any worker in those countries is lying or ill-informed. Look at each individually countries economies & you begin to realize why the corporations are salivating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. I remember a guy promising in 2008 to get us out of NAFTA. Apparently he was wrong too? n/t

[bvar22]

122. He never even tried.

THAT promise hit the trash can on day one.

In fact, there are reports that Obama sent a rep to Canada to talk to the PM to tell him that the NAFTA stuff was all bullshit he was slinging to get votes,
and he had no intention of changing NAFTA.

[lumberjack_jeff]

123. Yes. Austan Goolsbee was that guy. n/t

[bvar22]

135. Thank You.

I initially wrote off this report as a fabrication of the Right Wing,
and didn't believe that Obama could be anywhere NEAR that duplicitous.
I wasn't aware of any other corroboration, so I never posted it at DU.
Lately, I have uncovered other sources (one IN Canada) that confirm this story.

I will check out your info.

Disgusting if it is true, and I'm tending to believe it now.

[lumberjack_jeff]

136. Here's a contemporary article from Mother Jones

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/03/whoops-obama-adviser-did-talk-nafta-canadian-govt

[nationalize the fed]

156. Canadian TV

Goolsby in the next one halfway through

"...should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans" -Goolsby

There's more

[QC]

153. Yes, he was the senior economist at the DLC before joining

the Obama campaign. One of those early signs that many people here waved away angrily when it was brought up.

[rock]

127. A simpler explanation

Obama is wrong on TPP.

[BainsBane]

152. Release it so we can see for ourselves.

Then we don't have to take anyone's word on it.

[Sparhawk60]

160. If It Was a Good Deal

Obama would be shouting the details of the deal from the rooftops if he thought it was a good agreement for working Americans. He said that you would know Warren was wrong if you dig in to the facts. Ok, release the facts and I am sure Warren would be the first to admit she was wrong.

That he doesn't release the facts speaks for it self.