Obama says trade deal lets US write the rules, not China

[Beauregard]

Source: AFP

BEAVERTON, Ore. (AP) -- President Barack Obama says the U.S. must write the rules of the global economy now, while it's in a position of economic strength.

If it doesn't, Obama says, "China will." And he says that would give Chinese workers the upper hand and lock Americans out of jobs.

Obama made his case for international trade pacts Friday at the Beaverton, Oregon, headquarters of the giant clothing and shoe company Nike. But he also met with Oregon small business leaders. He says small companies make up 98 percent of U.S. exporters and benefit from open markets.

The president acknowledges that many of his fellow Democrats oppose the 12-nation Trans-Pacific trade deal because they worry it will hurt American workers.

Obama says, "Some of my dearest friends are wrong. They're just wrong."


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-trade-deal-lets-171614953.html

---

Just wrong, dearest friends?

[hollysmom]

1. fine prove it by showing us the agreement, Obama

[Beauregard]

3. No, dearest friend, it's a secret.

Don't bother your pretty little head with it.

[AZ Mike]

30. There is no agreement.

It's in negotiation right now. When the agreement is finalized, it will be posted publicly for a commentary period.

That said, I am anti-trade deals in general.

[Sgt Preston]

62. There are proposals, but we are not allowed to see them.

Not the most democratic way to do things, is it?

[AZ Mike]

68. Well, we're not structurally a true democracy.

We're a representative democracy. So, this is being negotiated in accordance with that theory.

Non-protectionism (e.g., trade deals) are a scourge on our economy, but our government is acting on our behalf (though possibly not in our interests) in a proper, technical way.

I'm ready for that commentary period to begin. Then we'll see how the government regards our comments. I'm not optimistic, but procedurally that's what we are left to wait for.

[Sgt Preston]

71. What a complete shuck.

Is THAT the excuse you're going to give? The Republican bumper sticker slogan that we are a "Republic, not a Democracy"? That's disgusting. Your President has the DISCRETION to invite public participation and discussion in these matters. Surely even you understand that, AZ.

[AZ Mike]

73. Yes, a negotiation involving 330 million participants....

....would be really practical and effective.

[Beauregard]

80. Straw man.

Ignore.

[rock]

102. And yet it's those 330 million that are affected

What to do? What to do?

[olegramps]

41. The worst aspect is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause.

This was contained in the NAFTA and has been a disaster. Basically it puts Americans at risk to provide ridiculous compensation if our laws should conflict with the interest of the foreign investor. Take for example that a foreign investor buys a property that is zoned for only buildings of a certain height. They submit plans for a structure that doesn't conform to the building codes. They then can sue to claim that the law prevented them from makes some ridiculously claimed loss of business. There are nearly one billion dollars in pending suits under the NAFTA agreement pending. Guess who has to pay for the supposed loss, the United States tax payer. My understanding is that this trade agreement would go even further in allowing the settlement to be made by a secret trade commission thereby dodging the courts.

The same goes for the trade infractions. When unions objected to the practice of dumbing and unfair labor practices, they have been tied up in the courts for years with no settlement in sight. Meanwhile, the offending foreign manufacture floods the market and kills thousands of American workers jobs driving the manufacturing plant into bankruptcy. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

[Sgt Preston]

61. +1. nt

[joshcryer]

69. The USA has never lost an ISDS case.

This is so silly. It's actually slanted in FAVOR of the USA.

[olegramps]

70. I didn't say that the U.S. lost any cases.

[joshcryer]

74. No, but you think the USA would.

Which is preposterous. If the USA lost a case it will have fucked up bad. Child slavery or something.

[olegramps]

98. That is not what I understand would happen with this trade agreement.

It would be taken out of the hands of the courts and be decided by a secret panel of appointed arbitrators. This is of major concern to some of the some of the commentators that I have read. You seem to be in favor of the trade agreement, however, you neglect to address the issues that other agreements have caused. Namely, the concerns of the unions that have filled grievances that have not been settled after years. I definitely oppose Fast Tracks since it would not allow any amendments to the trade agreement and could only be voted up or down. With the control of congress by the Republicans that would almost insure it passage.

[joshcryer]

115. Exactly, but the arbitration will be in ICSID.

Which is based in Washington D.C. and run by US judges and lawyers. There's a reason the US has never once lost an ISDS case. Because the odds are stacked incredibly in our favor.

I am not in favor of the trade agreement, I think that ultimately it sets back the environment by at least a decade by the intellectual property provisions. If the environmental sections left room for better bargaining power for developing countries, then yes, I would would feel it was worth chancing it (in the end automation will take over in like 10-15 years, TPP is literally nothing on the scheme of things in that vein). But because the intellectual property provisions essentially kill any renewable buildout in developing countries, it's a waste of time, and not going to achieve anything.

The secret panels are a feature of TPP, because it guarantees an outcome in favor of the US. Unless the US is doing egregious practices like slave labor, the US is going to win every single one of the ISDS cases. Every time, without fail. We have a better judicial system, we have better lawyers, we have judges who are biased in our favor. The whole point, literally, of ISDS, is to keep the US from having to pay out to other countries. Because really, what countries in TPP have better environmental, intellectual property, or trade standards than the US? None of them. This actually explains why AU got an exemption under the ISDS part, because one of our companies sued them to oblivion and they lost (Phillip Morris).

ISDS is a damn red herring. The focus should be on how TPP does not offer true environmental protection. But since protecting the environment is so last decade, no one gives a shit.

[FarrenH]

99. Be careful about conflating America winning ISDS cases

with American *companies* winning ISDS cases. ISDS cases under existing bilateral agreements have allowed American companies to continue deplorable business practices abroad, which in turn has contributed to job losses in the USA.

[joshcryer]

114. But Warren doesn't argue that.

She thinks that somehow magically some TPP partner can sue the US over pollution or some such nonsense. It's completely absurd.

Yes, ISDS favors the US and US corporations (to the detriment of the third world), but Warren does not argue that, she doesn't say it's bad because it shafts any country whose standards aren't up to the US's standards (which many developing countries are far behind).

She should make that case rather than pull out this red herring about boilerplate ISDS language.

[Hoyt]

78. You have any examples of USA losing an ISDS dispute, resulting in a "disaster," under NAFTA.

[tridim]

48. There is no agreement, yet, Hollysmom. nt

[Sgt Preston]

63. LOL :)

There are proposals. Secret proposals which, once agreed upon, cannot be modified. Congress will have to vote up or down on a done deal.

[peacebird]

2. I trust Bernie & Elizabeth on this one much more than Obama

[ananda]

4. Agree

No deal that isn't American worker friendly. Period.

[arcane1]

14. And Grayson and Reich too!

And these attempts at "selling" the TPP are starting to make me embarrassed for him.

[tridim]

49. Why do you not trust Obama?

[peacebird]

59. Because a majority of R's in Congress like TPP, Grayson/Warren/Sanders & Robert Reich hate it

That combo one/two punch says TPP is BAD to me, and Obama wants it passed without letting us see the details.

[Beauregard]

81. :)

[ibegurpard]

113. Because his education policies undermine public education

Because he fought progressives on including a public option in the ACA.
That's just two.

[lark]

5. Stop it, Obama.

You are just embarassing yourself. We know you sold out on this, quit trying to draw lipstick on this huge gross hog.

[djean111]

6. Lets the corporations write the rules. I don't think we workers are included in the "us".

How could he say "up to 10,000 jobs, over 10 years," with a straight face?

[subterranean]

24. The key phrase there is "up to."

"Up to" 10,000 jobs means they'll be able to say they kept their promise even if they create only one job.

[frylock]

66. and it could take up to 10+ years to accomplish even that

[Demeter]

7. Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbb!

[SamKnause]

26. Fuckin A

Love it !!!!!!!

[mother earth]

89. TY, I needed that laugh.

[Hoyt]

8. Obama is right again.

[Demeter]

10. You mean, as opposed to left?

[Beauregard]

11. Thanks for sharing! Would you care to elaborate?

Or were you speaking ex cathedra? You know, like the Pope.

[Hoyt]

15. His comment is self explanatory, even if folks are too myopic to see it.

[StandingInLeftField]

18. " Obama says, 'Some of my dearest friends are wrong. They're just wrong.' "

The logical and factual brilliance of this cogent argument is stunning!

[Hoyt]

20. No, he said China will write the rules if we don't . Not only are some of his friends wrong,

they are playing politics and darn near lying for votes and support.

[arcane1]

19. Saying "They're wrong" is a content-free statement.

It can't be "self-explanatory" by definition, because it doesn't explain anything.

[Hoyt]

21. Seems obvious to me. We aren't going to progress trading among ourselves, unless we change

our definition of progress. Don't think most here are ready to do that.

[arcane1]

29. We're not "trading among ourselves" right now. You're making that up.

If the TPP is so great, why do you have to make things up in order to defend it?

[Hoyt]

39. Then why oppose a trade agreement hat improves on the way things are done now?

[arcane1]

44. Because there is zero evidence that this is true.

"Because I said so" isn't good enough.

[Hoyt]

45. You are right, just because you said so is not good enough.

[arcane1]

46. The burden of proof is on Obama, to prove this deal is different than the others.

He has so far failed to do so. You haven't done any better.

[Hoyt]

51. That's bull. Don't have time to try explaining complicated issues to you, neither does Obama.

[stillwaiting]

52. You spend a lot of time on DU. So you have plenty of time. Let's see it one day.

I'm sure it will make a fascinating OP.

[arcane1]

54. In other words, you lost the argument.

[Hoyt]

56. Nope. You've done nothing but say we don't need to try to influence trade among the 11 countries.

We don't need to renegotiate NAFTA, which the TPP does, we are just fine doing nothing. I disagree .

[frylock]

67. Don't have the ability to try explaining complicated issues to you..

FIFY

[Trajan]

36. WTF are you talking about?

What definition of progress needed to be re defined, and what is the RE-definition of progress?

Please provide some clues for your mysterious assertions ...

[Hoyt]

53. Read about a Scandanavian country like Denmark.

[jeff47]

37. We already trade billions worth of goods among the 11 countries in the treaty.

This agreement will not "open new markets for our goods". It will open new markets for our capital. Letting that capital create jobs in those other countries instead of creating jobs in the US.

[Hoyt]

40. New markets for our capital mean new money for safety nets if we tax them

properly.

[jeff47]

42. :rofl:

Yeah, Congress is going to start taxing foreign subsidiaries any day now. Any day now. Any day now. Here it comes. Any day now....

[Hoyt]

43. I'd rather have the money to tax when we cone to our senses, than hamstring us from benefitting

from trade.

[jeff47]

47. How, exactly, do you propose to tax a foreign company?

Seriously. I want to hear your plan for taxing a company that exists only in Vietnam. It never leaves Vietnam. It never sells any products or services in the US. No person who works for that company ever sets foot inside US territory. They own a factory in Vietnam, and make shoes. They make billions in income because a US investor gave them the start-up money to sell shoes to China and India.

Now explain how you tax it from the US. Go ahead. I'm all ears.

[Hoyt]

64. Difficult to post to obtuse people.. These are multinational companies.

For example, the Nikes come back here and Nike gets taxed here for their profits made in this country.

Besides, do you have something against some Vietnamese making a few bucks making shoes. I think we owe it to them.

[jeff47]

105. Guess what? Other countries actually buy goods!

For example, the Nikes come back here and Nike gets taxed here for their profits made in this country.

And if the TPP required all goods to be sold in the US, that might work. But that wouldn't exactly be "free trade", now would it?

There's no particular reason why the goods have to be sold in the US. And with the massive markets in China and India, there's little reason to assume the goods have to come back to the US.

Besides, do you have something against some Vietnamese making a few bucks making shoes. I think we owe it to them.

Do you have something against factory workers in the US? I think we owe them an economy that can produce jobs for them, instead of shoveling capital out of the US.

[pipoman]

112. LOL...you want to use Nike? The company selling shoes

In the us for $300 that cost $1.50 to produce? That Nike? They'll be taxed, the shoes will now be $330, the labor living in thatch huts drinking dirty water shopping in the company store will still be doing exactly that....organized US labor should have multiple seats in the negotiations...instead all seats are occupied by big multinational corporate interests...any Democrat who argues for this isn't really interested in labor, in the US or anywhere else on the planet....#thelaborpartyisdead2016

[Sgt Preston]

72. You can tax the US investor.

Which is all that really matters. But I guess you know that, huh?

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ar01.html

[jeff47]

104. Nope. He leaves the money in Vietnam. (nt)

[Hoyt]

110. You don't get it, most of the nikes are sold here and Nike is a US corporation.

[Sgt Preston]

60. Whose "capital"? "Our" capital?

Hoyt, you are a crackup!

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Yes, we know. The leader is always right.

It still sounds better in the original Italian.

Democracy is hardly intended to make lemmings out of citizens.

How are we citizens writing the rules to an agreement we can't see? What are they doing that's so good for us?

I voted for Obama twice. At least the first time it was because he promised transparency. The second time it was because he was still better than a vulture capitalist. What has been leaked of this deal doesn't look like anything that's good for Americans or most people in the world. It looks like a blueprint for corporate tyranny.

If "we" don't write the rules, then China will write the rules is a false dichotomy. The "we" of whom Obama speaks doesn't include the American people or any other person made of flesh and blood. It makes precious little difference to me whether the Chinese Communist Party or a cabal of greedy, power hungry capitalist write the rules. It's still rule by elites. It's still tyranny. I stand with another "we", the we who aren't having any of this bullshit.

[Geronimoe]

9. I don't think so

I don't see global corporations that do not pay US taxes or their lawyers and lobbyist as being the US. They are the ones who wrote the secret deal.

The President obviously thinks they are the US and he is working for them, as their President.

Obama's comments says all we need to know about who he realy works for, and it sure isn't American citizens.

[sendero]

90. Exactly...

.... and it amazes me that some still refuse to see it. Obama works for his corporate masters, to be fair, just like the last several presidents.

Anyone that thinks that ANY president of the US cares one whit what you need or want is a very naive person. Maybe 50 years ago.

[arcane1]

12. Is this the same China we have VOLUNTARILY sent thousands of jobs to?

If only he could, you know, explain why we're wrong.

[hedda_foil]

50. Not really. It's the China that we voluntarily sent MILLIONS of jobs to.

Which is how we went from being citizens or voters to consumers.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. CORRECTION: It lets *Corporate America* write the rules.

[CharlotteVale]

17. Bingo.

[Punx]

32. Yep

+1

If this is about American Jobs, then why isn't he in Maine at Reebok?

Sorry edited to add "at Reebok"

[Hoyt]

91. The US Trade Rep is a career diplomat.

[StandingInLeftField]

16. I'm fairly certain that the Chinese

negotiators are not just going to sit back and allow the US to dictate terms. More likely a room full of corporate lawyers representing all the major players are going to hammer out the best deal for the toughest negotiator.

[jeff47]

38. China isn't in the TPP. (nt)

[Autumn]

22. Interesting. Who shall I believe Bernie, Liz or Obama?

No contest there. Bernie and Liz.

[SamKnause]

28. Alan Grayson

Sherrod Brown

Robert Reich

[Roy Rolling]

23. Let me clarify . . .

By the term "U.S." I mean the biggest multinational corporations who own the U.S. government will write the rules.

Rest easy, it will all be over soon . . .

[Roy Rolling]

27. We can trust them . . .

[SamKnause]

25. You are lying.

[yallerdawg]

31. Facts matter, don't they? Or are we just the other side of the same coin.

The TPA fast track, what we are negotiating for, TPA synopsis and bill at link.

Is "You lie!" really our position?

Democratic Senator Max Baucus on new trade promotion authority:

“The TPA legislation that we are introducing today will make sure that these trade deals get done, and get done right. This is our opportunity to tell the Administration – and our trading partners – what Congress’ negotiating priorities are,” Baucus said. “TPA legislation is critical to a successful trade agenda. It is critical to boosting U.S. exports and creating jobs. And it’s critical to fueling America’s growing economy.”

“Every President since FDR has sought trade promotion authority from Congress because of the job-creating benefits of trade. Renewing TPA will help advance a robust trade agenda that will help American businesses, workers, farmers and ranchers by giving them greater access to overseas markets,” said Hatch. “This bipartisan legislation helps meet the challenges of today’s competitive global economy and will play a key role in getting our nation out of years of economic stagnation by spurring economic growth and greater opportunity. From increasing protections for digital trade and data flows to enforcing strong U.S. intellectual property rights, this legislation will be instrumental to ensuring that our country’s current trade negotiations in Asia and Europe are a success and that these agreements meet the high-standards necessary for congressional approval.”

“The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act will give us the tools we need to move more job-creating trade agreements,” Camp said. “This legislation will ensure that the Administration is following the rules and negotiating objectives that Congress has set out. In order to achieve the economic growth and job benefits that trade agreements can bring to the U.S., we must first pass strong, bipartisan TPA legislation. I look forward to working with the Administration and with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to enact this bill.”

http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=7cd1c188-87f1-4a0b-8856-3fc139121ca9

[hedda_foil]

55. Max Baucus? You're actually quoting the repellent Max Baucus here on DU?

Haven't been paying much attention, have you?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[yallerdawg]

57. Sometimes I feel lost.

Is this Anti-Democratic Underground?

I know everyone hates Obama, Hillary, Baucus...

Sanders is OK - well, no, he's not actually a Democrat.

Well...

[JayNev]

87. Different

Being democratic does not mean one has to support the Democratic Party, especially the establishment wing of said party.

[yallerdawg]

88. Will everyone disappear if we have a Republican president?

Then there wouldn't be anything left to hate and despise.

Because, you know, we have Republican candidates and a Republican Congress and a right-wing Supreme Court. At least half of us live in red states.

And we spend all our time bashing and defending Democrats.

[neverforget]

108. I guess all those Democrats in Congress that don't support the TPP also hate Obama

by your logic.

[yallerdawg]

109. Logic?

Where?

Not on TPP! That would require much more than simple "Just Say No."

[Locrian]

34. delusional.

Sad really. The flaw in his thinking (and maybe he really believes it) is that he thinks US companies are still "US Companies" and actually give a damn about people or country.

They couldn't give a rats ass. Sure, they want the TPP to be able to retain some of the power that China has. But ONLY FOR THEIR BENEFIT. Not for the US, for the "global citizens" or ANYONE. It's race to the bottom any way you cut it, and more concentration and hoarding of wealth.

[Beauregard]

82. "Race to the bottom"

That's a good sound-bite sized summary of the effect of TPP on US wages.

[Punx]

35. China is going to play by it's own rules regardless

And has been regardless of previous agreements, so that's not a reason to do this deal. Very naive or uninformed on Obama's part.

I suggest people read the book, Into the Jaws of the Dragon" by Eamonn Fingleton. I find some of his arguments a bit specious and at times perhaps overblown, but good perspective none the less.

[msongs]

58. breaking: Obama calls for cancellation of H1B visa program lol sorry, "dear friends" I was wrong nt

[wolfie001]

65. We don't confront China on their currency manipulation.

Seems like we've given up before the negotiations started. How many jobs has that nasty strategy cost us?

[elzenmahn]

75. Bullshit, Mr. President...

...as I said in another post, the Chinese hold a substantial amount of US debt and are increasingly purchasing American businesses (AND American real estate).

They're already writing the rules. That train left the station a long time ago.

[randys1]

76. Ugh...I love ya Barack, but this is not good. Who is we, by the way. Nike?

or who is US, NIKE?

[Beauregard]

83. I like him, too. I mean, I'm not ashamed of him like Bush.

He doesn't embarrass me when he goes and talks to foreign leaders, etc. But I hate his pro-corporate policies. I have the feeling that he is trying to screw me. Not me personally, but everybody who works for a living.

[Renew Deal]

77. Does he know that China is listening?

And does China have an opinion on TPP?

[Kip Humphrey]

79. 1: China already has our jobs. 2: The enemy is global fascism (aka, Corporatism) not China 3.

"while it's in a position of economic strength" suggests our economic strength is soon to change and not for the better - something i agree with precisely because the consequence of implementing TPP and TTIP will be a significant decline in US domestic economic strength, US standard of living, US household net worth, US average wage, and US average life expectancy.

[JayNev]

84. Reality

What exactly is the truth about TPP, and why is Obama pushing so hard, when it obviously is going to damage US workers who are supposed to be the Democratic base? The reason is that Obama knows that Bill Clintons made tens of millions after his presidency from corporations. A similar payoff waits for Obama.

It is mind blowing that Obama who campaigned on creating the “most transparent Presidency” is now keeping the details of TPP secret due to the fear that it will energize its opponents. It is hard to oppose something without knowing what it is.

The TPP is going to push the US worker down even further. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and MNF for China are the reason why workers wages are stagnant while corporations make record profits.

Back in 2008 voters had a lot of illusions about Obama, but I felt he could not be trusted. His dealings with Exelon had shown he would do corporations’ bidding.

McCain would have led the US into new foolish wars, but he is too honest to try to pass secret trade agreements. The damage to US workers from free trade agreements is practically permanent. The rotten economy has led to a spike in suicides, especially among middle aged white males. Expect this sorry situation to continue.

Obama likely cares about the US workers, but just not enough to forsake the post presidency millions that wait for him.

Those who fantasize that Warren is the savior should go back and read the things Obama said before the 2008 elections, it sounds a lot like what Warren is saying now.

[Beauregard]

85. There are also his political debts to past donors.

Those contributions from Wall Street did not come for free. So in deciding policy, he looks to the past as well as to his own lucrative future.

[elzenmahn]

92. What upsets me the most...

...is that his entire spiel to those that disagree with him is that they are "just wrong", and that we should "trust him". Remember his MSNBS smooch-fest with Tweety and the other TPP shills a few weeks ago? He tells that group (and us) that he would not support a deal like this without believing that it would benefit American workers/consumers/etc. etc. etc. He is expecting blind trust from the Democrats in the House and Senate and, by extension, from the American people. Any expectation of blind trust, to me, should be met with extreme skepticism.

I can subscribe to the money motivation theory, and would add that he's pushing it this hard, NOW, because:

1. The Tea Freaks haven't woken up yet to this (though it looks like they're starting to);
2. Doing this now, before the election season, reduces its importance as a campaign issue by rendering it a "fete accompli" (forgive my spelling.)

The more the delay, the less the chance of passage. Wake up the Tea Freaks to put heat on enough Repubs, and both the TPP and TPA are dead. Good Riddance, I say.

[JayNev]

111. Name calling won't help...

If you really want to ally with the "Tea Party" on this and other issues, a good start may be do drop the name calling.

[elzenmahn]

116. With all due respect...

...I'll say and write what I please, thank you.

[daleo]

86. Trade pacts are supposed to be agreements among equals

Not "Americans making the rules".

[Cha]

93. But, Wah! I trust the President. This trade agreement will be shown before the vote.. but, that

gets lost in all the pitchforks and torches.and those who have nothing but cheap ignorant pot shots over the years.

[Kablooie]

94. And he STILL offers no specifics. Just general platitudes that it's good.

if it was really that good he'd be laying out all the specific points as to how it will help us.

Instead his whole argument is to trust the corporations that are writing this.
With there being such a strong distrust of the 1% today, to base your argument on trusting them is ludicrous.

His whole defense smells to high heaven.
On this point alone I'd go against it.

[DCBob]

95. Clearly this thing is more about hindering China's influence in the region...

than anything else.

[mother earth]

96. More like CORPORATIONS are writing the trade deals with rules that benefit them over global law.

Seems what is just wrong is allowing for this to even be proposed, much less passed.

[Jesus Malverde]

97. Laughable really...nt

[goldent]

100. I know a little about the President's priorities

And almost all I know about TPP is what I read on the Internet, mostly from sources with an agenda. That is another way of saying I don't know shit about it.

I'll trust Obama on this one.

[GeorgeGist]

101. So the other potential members of TPP have no say?

Sounds about right.

[candelista]

103. Everyone's "say" will be proportional to their capital.

So other potential members will be allowed a "peep" or two.

[Bradical79]

106. I'm highly skeptical

The corporate backers like Nike have never been fans of keeping jobs in the U.S. as far as I can tell. Not sure why I should believe this free trade agreement will buck the trend of harming American workers in order to generate more wealth for the wealthiest?

[moondust]

107. How about some specifics?

Exactly what kinds of jobs does he anticipate will be created in the U.S. as a result of this thing and how many? Be specific.

How is this good for small business? Be specific.

What happens if corporations everywhere including China choose to simply ignore these "rules" whenever they don't serve their profit maximization/bottom line, i.e. widespread selective compliance? What's the enforcement record for NAFTA, CAFTA, and KORUS FTA?