A Simple Chart to Illustrate How the TPP Improves on NAFTA

[BlueCaliDem]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/04/23/chart-week-how-trans-pacific-partnership-improves-nafta

President Obama is the first to say it: Past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype.

Coming from Illinois, he saw first-hand how trade could devastate small-town communities as manufacturers moved overseas in search of lower wages. Previous trade deals like NAFTA also failed to put in place tough labor and environmental standards, leaving American workers to fight an uphill battle on an uneven playing field.

That’s why the President is working with Congress to secure the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It’s the best opportunity we have to level that playing field and engrain American values in a trade agreement that will put American workers first.

Twelve countries – including Canada and Mexico – will be party to the TPP. That means we have the opportunity to renegotiate and improve on our old trade agreements to make sure America’s middle class reaps the benefits.

[center][font color="red" size="5" face="face"]Now compare:[/font][/center]
[center]Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/04/23/chart-week-how-trans-pacific-partnership-improves-nafta [/center]

[center][/center]

I continue to believe, and based on the above my belief is underscored, that if you're against the TPP you are FOR the status quo on past trade deals, including but not limited to, NAFTA and CAFTA.

[cali]

1. simple chart for those unable to research and learn the realities

and the environmental claims have been refuted repeatedly.

In fact, the WH and USTR had to take down their misleading claims about environmental groups liking the TPP. They ALL oppose it.

[MaggieD]

41. The environmentalist have legit reasons...

.... to be against it. I agree with that.

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/Fast_Track_Enviro_Letter_to_114th_Congress.pdf?docID=17141

Those are features, not bugs to the re thugs, sadly. However..... It also has the potential to improve on previous trade pacts and set good precedents for the future.

It also has some really odious shit in it.

I don't envy US negotiators or our politicians having to sort this thing out.

[Andy823]

51. I agree

It won't be easy sorting all the crap out. What I have a hard time believing is that President Obama would "lie" about all these things just to pass a totally horrible agreement that would be his legacy for the rest of his life. Why would anyone in their right mind knowing push this when they know it to be so terrible? President Obama is not stupid, and he has worked hard to change things. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt over all the "anonymous" leaks, and nobody knows who these leakers are. If I am wrong about the agreement I will admit it, but I still can't see the president being so stupid he would destroy his own legacy, it just makes no sense.

[tkmorris]

2. The problem with that chart is

It comes directly from the White House PR department. What did you think they were gonna say? The TPP kinda sucks? The devil is in the details and I haven't seen enough of those to judge the TPP yet.

[rock]

52. Absolutely correct!

What if (say) the details for the minimum wage rule are: at least 10 cents an hour. Don't you think that without the details we have nothing?

[zipplewrath]

3. Logical fallacy

I continue to believe, and based on the above my belief is underscored, that if you're against the TPP you are FOR the status quo on past trade deals, including but not limited to, NAFTA and CAFTA.

Ya always know an argument is weak when it relies upon a logical fallacy. It's called the false dichotomy. There are more options than "NAFTA or TPP".

[ellenrr]

4. Please tell me this is a joke or satire

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Nope. Well, maybe for people who have trouble believing that this president actually

has a track-record of working for the American people and for successful accomplishments that kept this country from catastrophic financial collapse. Otherwise, it's pretty serious.

[ellenrr]

18. I'm glad to know you. You're the first person i met who actually believes this.

a good laugh outloud this morning.
keep the hits coming.
i like to laugh.
altho it's kind of sad really. I should't be laughing....

[MaggieD]

42. Well meet another

I'm not particularly in favor of the TPP but I do believe Obama is correct in that it is going to happen with or without US involvement, and that he is motivated toward reforming trade pacts, and NOT by the chance to screw US workers or kow tow to corporations.

[BlueCaliDem]

43. I believe it because it's true - documented and all.

It's not difficult to find his successful accomplishments if you're genuinely interested in looking for them. It is, however, impossible to find them if you've made up your mind and decided that if this president is the devil incarnate. This is the problem I encounter with Tea Partiers and Republicans, too. No matter how I try to discuss with them the facts, they aren't open to any of it because Obama is EVEEEL. It's useless to discuss anything with a closed mind.

[AtomicKitten]

5. Oy.

[Fred Sanders]

6. I trust the information coming out from Camp Obama, all the other camps have so many differing agendas.

The NAFTA comparisons were the most far-fetched of them all, the fact Japan is the high wage, high GDP economy that has by far the most impact on America, and would also logically be impacted similarily to America, and is good with joining TPP, as is Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Isn't helping out the low wage, near slave labor conditions of the ultra-poor working folks in at least this handful of Asian nations not a liberal or progressive value? Look at the protections for those folks!

The more you know the more you can let go of the outrage and think about the big picture.

[Daemonaquila]

7. That is such nonsense.

Here's a simpler chart:

* NO AGREEMENT WHOSE TERMS ARE SECRET CAN BE "BETTER" OR "WORSE" than any other agreement. You reject it, period.
(The TPP Investment Chapter is classified and supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.)

* As of 4/27, only 40 house members and 3 senators had asked the White House to allow them to read the TPP. Of those who have, none of them are allowed to get copies, take photos, make notes, etc. BUT 500 CORPORATE "Trade Advisors" HAVE SPECIAL ACCESS. That is not how we do business in a democracy, and shame on anyone who trusts this process or would support the TPP without full disclosure.

* From leaked pieces, we know that TPP cracks down on Internet and digital freedoms, poses risks to journalists and whistleblowers, and adopts criminal sanctions for civil matters like copyright. Read the great EFF article - https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

It's time to get off the rah-rah bandwagon and tell the administration that if it wants to pass TPP, it needs to make the terms public and allow actual citizen feedback and real debate on it. Until then, I don't care if the administration claims it saves the whales, does my dishes, and will guarantee free college tuition through grad school to all kids starting Monday.

[BlueCaliDem]

14. The problem with your post is, you're thinking from the fallacy that the TPP is a done deal.

It's not. It's currently being negotiated and leaked DRAFTS are just that - leaked DRAFTS.

For the life of me, why do some people point to DRAFTS as proof positive that something is when it isn't?

The story isn't written in the drafts. It's written in the REWRITES.

The panic and freak-out in the blogosphere is the foremost reason why DRAFTS of TPP negotiations should NOT be presented to the public. It's also curious why you or anyone else would demand that this president negotiate trade deals in the public domain when that was never demanded of previous presidents.

[tblue]

54. So drafts we're not allowed to see are not proof

but a PR infographic is?

You are very bright and sincere, BlueCaliDem, and I mean nothing personal against you. But doesn't it tell you something when Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Alan Grayson all vehemently oppose this thing we are not allowed to see?

The first I heard of it was from Greg Palast, the investigative journalist. Totally freaked me out. I'll find the link if you're interested.

And yes, even NAFTA started out with honorable goals concerning fair wages, worker safety, environmental protections, and the balance of trade, which many of us hoped would come to fruition. They didn't. They didn't. Sposed to, but didn't.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. That "PR inforgraphic" was necessary *after* the leaks. People are getting the wrong idea

on what President Obama is fighting for, and Democratic Reps, too - who have actually seen the drafts and agree with the path President Obama is taking - are rightfully disappointed that President Obama has done such a piss-poor job informing the American people of his goals to make the most progressive trade deal in history, and how it would benefit the American worker. He hasn't done a good job making his case. He should know by now that people expect far more from him than they've ever expected from past presidents. At least now he's stepped up to do just that, and the chart in my OP is just the beginning.

You are very bright and sincere, BlueCaliDem, and I mean nothing personal against you.

Thank you for this, and I understand that you're not making it personal. I've decided not to see any opposing views on TPP or TPA as a personal slight against me. All I ask is that people try to keep an open mind until the TPP negotiations are finalized. That's all.

[cali]

71. only 13 dem reps have come out in favor of the tpa which is indicative of support for the tpp

Over a hundred and fifty have spoken out strongly against the tpp. And sorry, the vast majority of those who have seen the drafts are against it. It's reprehensible to make the false claims you're making.

and here:

4 reasons why environmental orgs oppose the TPP:
:

1) The USTR has never brought an enforcement case against a country which has violated environmental provisions in a free
trade agreement.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/why_we_have_grave_environmenta.html

2) They have concluded that some of the provisions in the environmental chapter draft (leaked 1/14) are actually a step back (joint analysis from the World Wildlife Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and The Sierra Club)
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/TPP_Enviro_Analysis.pdf?docID=14842

3) concerns that it will increase fracking
http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership

4) Increased Corporate rights leading to more decisions like the March 17, 2015 ruling against Canada regarding open pit mining.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/0999_Trade_Bilcon_Factsheet_04_low.pdf?docID=17481

There's more- including the fact that there is nothing in the tpp that addresses climate change

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/TPP_and_Environment_Fact_Sheet.pdf?docID=15821

the chart is propaganda- garbage.

[Logical]

8. Oh FFS! Nt

[ellenrr]

9. are you fucking kidding me? Tpp- bad for labor,

bad for environment, bad for everyone but big business.


"The TPP is much more than a “free-trade” agreement. It is part of the overall corporate and Wall Street agenda to make the world safe for corporate investment and profits by reducing labor costs and undercutting workers’ rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health and financial laws and regulations that could impact profits; and setting up a process to resolve any disputes by going through special international tribunals rather than our own court system."

Read more at: http://www.cwa-union.org/issues/entry/c/trans-pacific_free_trade_agreement

[BlueCaliDem]

44. No. Not kidding. And consider the source you've linked to. It's a Union and Unions aren't

always right. Again...the leaked DRAFTS of the TPP negotiations are NOT set in stone. It's also a major reason why it's stupid to make those negotiations public. The freak-out is palpable.

And I'm curious, do you believe it's right for unions to have supported the Keystone XL bill in Congress? Two of the largest unions have: the AFL-CIO and the "Brotherhood of Teamsters". Do you believe they were correct in pushing Boehner to get the Keystone XL bill passed (the one that President Obama, by the way, ultimately VETOED - thank god!). So if your position is, that anything a Union says is holy, then President Obama was wrong to veto that bill, wasn't he?

[jwirr]

10. Simple chart. I think it is too simple. Example: Protect our oceans. When we ask to see these laws

we are going to want more than simple sentences. And exactly how are these going to be enforced? Plus none of them address the leaked parts that have us so upset.

[BlueCaliDem]

46. The chart is straight from the White House site. It's made simple for the people currently in freak-

out-mode about leaked DRAFTS of the TPP negotiations. Again, nothing is yet set in stone. And Congress will have more than ample time to review it - 120 days of time (more than any other president was required to allow) after the initial 90 days when the White House presents the deal to Congress for approval. That's 90 + 120 = 210 days! So "fast track" is a misnomer unless people have a strange concept of time what "fast" is.

And exactly how are these going to be enforced?

Via the ISDS. But those provisions have to have "teeth", which is currently missing in prior trade deals.

Plus none of them address the leaked parts that have us so upset.

Because those were DRAFTS. What people are freaking out over is part of the sausage-making process. Again, nothing is set in stone, nothing is a "done deal", and "fast track" isn't all that fast.

Can we at least wait until the negotiations have been finalized and the package delivered to Congress for their 210 days of review before we freak out? Hasn't this president at least earned that much?

[jwirr]

48. No we cannot wait. He wants the fast-track before we see the finished docs for a reason. Why

if it is so good? As to the ISDS enforcing it - isn't that the investors? I for one do not trust the corporations.

[BlueCaliDem]

67. Why not give this president the same courtesy as we've given past presidents? Why is he different

than they? The TPA - which gives Congress 210 days, that's seven months and 120 days more than past presidents were required, by the way - merely giving this president the credibility he needs in order to negotiate a new trade deal. Congress, not the president, has final say on the TPP.

I for one do not trust the corporations.

Neither do I. But I do trust this president.

[jwirr]

70. I think I read that we did not give Bill Clinton fast track when he was negotiating NAFTA. I may be

wrong. Congress and the WH have always argued over their powers and this one issue regarding giving up congressional power to the office of the president for 6 years is another example of that.

[pampango]

72. I believe he had fast track for NAFTA but it expired after that and the republican congress refused

to renew it.

[jwirr]

73. Okay. Thanks for the correction.

http://www.gofundme.com/te2gqk

[DefenseLawyer]

11. Who exactly is going to enforce these things?

NAFTA had many of the same protections, negotiated as "side deals" with Canada and Mexico. They were never seriously enforced. If we can't enforce those rules in Mexico, do you really think we can enforce them in Vietnam and China?

[n2doc]

17. Exactly

Simply enforcing the overfishing protections would be a full time job for a force the size of the US Navy. These poorer countries can't do it.

[jwirr]

50. Maybe this is an answer to how to use our military in other ways?

[Elwood P Dowd]

12. You left out these.........

[betterdemsonly]

15. Just more take my word for it without proof. n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

16. ...

[morningfog]

19. That is a simple chart.

[woo me with science]

45. Indeed.

Very simple.

[madokie]

20. And the exact reason that this is being done the way it is

if the republiCON congress critters were allowed to input, as a whole, there would be no change in this deal from NAFTA or the other trade deals. Thats why it is necessary to do this as its being done. IMHO
I TRUST Obama. Simple as that.
Does anyone here really think that this President would stab us in the back, in my opinion I don't even want to have a discussion with anyone who does. Again, Simple as that!

[HereSince1628]

21. But then, several TPP member nations don't seem to see labor and human rights

according to the ideal.

Do you think that's going to be confronted to force change or will something 'more pragmatic' be substituted for justice?????

[pampango]

35. Should we only put labor and human rights into agreements with countries that already

respect those rights? Enforcement is a good question in any agreement - domestic or international. How do you go from "pretty words on paper" to actual enforcement? For that to happen we need effective enforcement mechanisms even though, in international agreements, that often butts heads with claims of 'national sovereignty'.

[ucrdem]

22. Thanks BCD, very cool

No question that this is a better mousetrap. Why would anyone doubt it? It's been in the works for six years with loads of transparency readily at hand to anyone with a browser. The current politicization is ridiculous bordering on disgraceful, particularly coming from Obama's own party and our own, though to some extent I suppose inevitable. Anyway I'm glad Team Obama is working on getting the message out.

[Katashi_itto]

23. Lololol...what a load of BS.

Course the poster is a BOG booster. So what do you expect?

[BlueCaliDem]

47. Don't you have waffles to make?

It would be more productive to a DU discussion than any of your posts could ever contribute.

[KG]

24. here's my favorite chart on TTP propoganda...

[pampango]

25. If past international negotiations/agreements did not work as planned, the progressive approach is

to stop negotiating with other countries and have the US act unilaterally. Withdraw from NAFTA and other trade agreements as well as the WTO. (No one is going to trust "renegotiation" even though that sounds good.)

Tell other countries that the US had decided to impose pro-American trading rules on the world. FDR and Truman had a excellent opportunity to do this when American power was at its zenith and blew it with their stupid "multilateralist" ITO and GATT. (Oh, and thank you republicans for killing the ITO in the Senate or this 'multilateralist' crap would have been even worse than it is. If only you had won control of congress in time to kill GATT as well. Oh well.)

We hope you understand what we are doing with these new rules - but we really don't care whether you do or not. We are big and strong. You? Not so much.

Acting unilaterally without respect to what other countries want may have a conservative history to it but the world should trust us on this one. We know this sounds like the trading world of Coolidge/Hoover that FDR thought he had banished forever, but trust us. This is a progressive version of C/H unilateralism on trade whether you can tell the difference or not.

However (and we hate to go all 'republican' on you) we really don't care whether you trust us or not. We are doing what we think is in our national interest and you can't stop us. And don't give us that ol' "America the bully" or "American exceptionalism" stuff! Have you seen how many planes and ships we have compared to you? We are 'exceptional'! No one wastes money on the military like we do! And "bully" is in the eye of the beholder and the 'beholder' is, by definition, weaker so who really cares!

Negotiations are for weak liberals! Taking unilateral action is for strong conservatives and progressives! So, according to these rules, anyone who goes the "international negotiation route" to improve things is, at best, a 'weak liberal' but, more likely, is a 'corporate sellout', corrupt politician selling his support for a comfortable retirement.

TWP

[Hoyt]

26. Good chart. Folks who are against TPP, aren't going to read it because by golly it will ship all

our jobs overseas, destroy our sovereignty (where have we heard that before), and other such bunk. Besides, we all know Obama is an evil corporatist placed here to sell us into slavery. That's why he has that big smile, and laughs so much.

[morningfog]

27. Read what? That conclusory chart?

There is nothing there to read.

[treestar]

28. anti Tpp stuff is very conclusory

usually based on the paranoid idea that "the corporatists" are trying to make us all poor.

[morningfog]

29. I can't imagine why anyone would think that the

wealthy would want to maintain the status quo and insulate its wealth. That's just crazy talk.

[treestar]

32. but not to the point where they actively

want to create a situation where they are surrounded by poor and desperate people.

[raouldukelives]

39. For real. And some people think they are actually denying science.

Science that says they are creating a holocaust for billions of people & animals.
Like they would ever let that happen.

[cali]

30. no. at least for me it's based more on the reality that to corporations

the bottom line is far more important than anything else. you understand, I trust, that that's simple reality. And the damages done by corporations seeking to make profits (which is their raison d'etre) is a very, very long one.

this ain't rocket science and it sure as shit ain't "paranoia".

[tblue]

55. ^^^this^^^

Thank you, cali.

I can't believe people actually defend this thing.

[Motown_Johnny]

31. No, it is based on using trade policy as foreign policy is a mistake.

I am all for foreign aid, but not in the form of trade agreements.

TPP is an attempt to increase American influence in the region on the assumption that the damage to our economy will be a small price to pay.

Many of us disagree.

Corporatists do not care if we are all poor or not. They simply see the world through quarterly balance sheets. That is no way to run policies of by and for the people.

[treestar]

33. Corporatists need us to be middle class

Happy with what we have, rather than desperately climbing over the gates around their property.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. That is what the police state is for, or haven't you noticed

the lengths that law enforcement will go to in order to keep "order" in lower income areas.

Besides, "Middle Class" is a relative term. The middle class in India makes one hell of a lot less money than the middle class does here.

[treestar]

36. They would rather not have to do that

And have us be content with what we have.

How would the "let" India even strive towards middle class. They could have left them desperately poor. But a billion people desperately poor are going to upset the apple cart.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Why can't "Democrats" just look at Obama's successful KORUS

agreement and recognize that the TPP and TTIP will work just as well?

Oh wait... we are.

[Hoyt]

53. KORUS is actually a good alliance.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. For someone.

http://www.epi.org/press/korus-cost-united-states-40000-jobs-korea/

[Hoyt]

58. They calculate lost jobs based upon a trade deficit. Truth is, a trade

deficit with Korea does not necessarily mean lost jobs, because if someone didn't buy a Korean car/product, they'd likely buy another foreign car. Hence, the deficit would just shift to another country and the Nationalists could harp about the trade deficit with that country.

Besides, some folks put too much emphasis on trade deficits. Deficits are not always bad.

[lamp_shade]

38. Kick and happy to recommend.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. Thanks, LP.

I just hope more DUers read this with an open mind and not make up their minds before all the details are finalized and Congress gets their 210 days to review the final deal. No, that's not a typo. Congress will have 210 days to review and debate the finalized TPP deal.

Unlike his predecessors, President Obama will be required to allow Congress not 90 days but 210 days before they'll do an up or down vote. That's seven months for the public to debate and decide the finalized TPP bill.

I share your opinion of giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt. I really don't believe he'd do anything to destroy the very legacy he's fought so hard for that includes bringing this country back from the brink of economic disaster and those 61 consecutive months of job growth. Why would he want to decimate that record with a trade deal that could wipe out his legacy in a couple of years time? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[MaggieD]

40. Objectively it IS an improvement on NAFTA

But it also has some other odious provisions (as it stands now, anyway). I'm not convinced on it at this point. However I am convinced Obama is trying to use it to set a precedent for trade pacts in the future.

[cali]

49. How would YOU know, MaggieD?

Have you had access to the TPP?

I've read the three leaked draft chapters. There's a reason that so many environmental groups like NRDC (I trust you know how influential the NRDC is) have come out strongly against the tpp. The leaked environmental chapter is not strong on environmental protections.

Why we have grave environmental concerns about "fast track" trade authority

A "fast track" trade bill was just introduced that would expedite approval of two massive trade agreements. We know enough about these pending trade agreements - one between the U.S. and eleven other countries and the other with the European Union - to reject efforts to put them on a fast lane to becoming law. These agreements could have grave impacts on our bedrock environmental laws and public health protections. That is why we oppose this "fast track" bill. Anyone that cares about the environment and public health should also oppose this bill.

<snip>

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/why_we_have_grave_environmenta.html

[Hoyt]

59. And how do you know it will be awful? As to your comments about environmental

groups, they do good things, but they are like all such groups.

Learned this working for a similar one -- to build membership, you oppose everything, dream up the most awful outcomes, and when a bill or agreement comes out that is not as bad as you said, you claim your ranting is responsible for the improvement.

I cannot envision things being better by scrapping the TPP if Obama achieves his objectives. If he does not achieve his objectives, then that's a different story.

[cali]

60. lol. You clearly know nothing about NRDC

and guess what? you can't extrapolate from your supposed experience working for an organization "similar" to NRDC and extend it to any other organization. that's just so basic, Maggie. You are suggesting that NRDC does the things in your silly made up rant without knowing anything about it- presumably for funding. Hate to break this to you, but NRDC has very deep pockets-

Natural Resources Defense Council
Endowment: $118 million
Investments in publicly traded securities: $117 million
What we know:
-“NRDC has no direct investments in sectors likely to be affected by NRDC advocacy. We specifically screen out extractive industries, fossil fuels, and other areas of the energy sector.”

You really do go on about things you know nothing about.

Now you are reduced to slamming environmental orgs.

It truly is pathetic.

[Hoyt]

61. LMAO. They have members and seek donations. Hence, everything is a potential crisis.

Not saying some things aren't a crisis, but the environmental aspects of the TPP aren't. Doing nothing, or scuttling it, might be though.

[cali]

62. right. Because you would know more than NRDC, The Sierra Club

350.org and other organizations that have actually read and analyzed the leaked environmental chapter and other documents pertinent to it.



Your ego is quite, er, ponderous.

[Hoyt]

66. Sierra club has members. Hence, everything has to be a crisis.

Scrapping the TPP will not improve the environment.

And how do you know you are correct, the TPP being a secret and all?

[MaggieD]

74. There is a shit ton of info available

And clearly you haven't read and/or don't understand any of it.

[Hoyt]

80. [phone]

[cali]

81. you have been taken to the woodshed, Mags. Did you forget your little exchanges

in the ridiculous thead of yours entitled Hillary was critical of the TPP before it was cool.

YOU kept claiming that provisions in the tpp dealt with currency manipulation. that was, of course, like almost all of your ignorant claims about the tpp, false. bullshit, but man, maggie, gotta give you mad props for pushing that loade of shit for as long as you could. Of course you got called on it- over and over- and finally had to cop to being WRONG.

Loved that thread, Maggie. Think I'll go give your op a kick.

You are the one who is utterly clueless and all over the map. You comprehend nothing about this. Zilch.

[MaggieD]

83. You're welcome to your opinion

But the facts are that one of the main thrusts of the US involvement in the TPP is introduce strong regulations against currency manipulation. That is one of the main drivers of China and Japan trade deficits.

I can't say whether it will be successful, and even if it were I would be skeptical of the enforcement (as I have stated previously, that skepticism is why I am against the TPP, even with regulations around currency manipulation).

All I am saying is that Obama and Clinton are not in this to screw people. If you want to think that me having that opinion means I was "taken to the woodshed" on the issue you are free to believe that. I don't agree.

[Elwood P Dowd]

64. Obama: "Just try this one more time. I promise this time it will taste different."

Insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

[Populist_Prole]

65. Thesis statement of the dynamic that's going on now n/t

[rbnyc]

68. if this agreement includes a commitment to transparency...

...then let the process be transparent.

The main issue with the TPP is the fast track process and the secrecy. There is some leaked text that is pretty terrifying. It needs to be seen in context and our representatives need to be unhindered in their access and participation in debate.

These bullet pints could represent real functionality of the agreement, or they could be cosmetic.

For example, how does it protect the oceans? Can such provisions be overridden through ISDS? We should be allowed to know.

[Hoyt]

69. When there is a final agreement, assuming it is finalized, you'll see it well before Congress votes.

Scuttling the TPP, will definitely not protect the oceans.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. This is insulting. 'Bans workplace discrimination'? That's utter nonsense, the US has legal

discrimination in employment against LGBT currently in 29 States and that will continue with TPP, further some nations party to TPP discriminate against LGBT and others in every possible manner, including by imprisoning and executing LGBT people. So telling me this agreement bans discrimination is flat out insulting. It is a lie, utterly dishonest and the WH should be ashamed of itself for releasing this crap. How dare they? They can't even get ENDA passed in the US, now they are telling me Brunei will ban discrimination?

[cantbeserious]

76. Where In That Chart Are American Workers Protected?

eom

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

77. Well, I'm convinced. Who needs to see the actual agreement

when you have a handy graphic that resembles the back of a cereal box? Our product good, their product bad.

If it's such a good agreement, and we'd go along if we knew the facts (the President's main argument), then show us the facts. And a list of the corporations whose security clearance allows them to see the document and make inputs that most likely benefit them.

[subterranean]

78. Republicans oppose most of the things in that chart, even in America.

Yet most of them are in favor of the TPP.

That means there must be some other provisions in it that they really, really like. So much so that they are actively supporting the President in a way they haven't done since he came into office. For me, that alone is reason for skepticism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. Where's the section for "making healthcare affordable"?

I'd like to see the administration argue that one.

[CanonRay]

82. The only way to improve NAFTA is to repeal it.

No more bullshit trade treaties. If this is so "good" for us, why the hell is it top secret?