TPP. Who is right?

[NorthCarolina]

When it comes to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP),

President Obama says: "What we are seeing is momentum building around a Trans-Pacific Partnership that can spur greater economic growth, spur greater jobs growth, set high standards for trade and investment throughout the Asia-Pacific."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren says: "If signed into law, President Obama’s TPP will override many American laws, and we won’t be allowed to enforce laws and regulations that get in the way of greedy corporations and the ‘rights’ given to them under the TPP.

Even more disconcerting is that it will infringe on U.S. sovereignty. It will result in higher trade deficits and send even more jobs, factories and industries out of the country while simultaneously increasing wealth inequality."

Sen. Bernie Sanders says: "In the last 10 years alone we have lost 50,000 factories and it is harder and harder to buy products manufactured in the United States. These new trade agreements are nothing more than a continuation of a failed trade policy and should be rejected. Our demand must be that corporations reinvest in this country, create jobs here and not in China or other low-wage countries,"

In YOUR opinion, with respect to the above three examples, whose opinion most closely reflects your view with regard to TPP?

[Cleita]

1. If you like NAFTA and CAFTA, you will love TPP because it will close all the loopholes

for anyone but large transnational corporations to make money. You can kiss whatever middle class life you have good-by unless you are one of the 1%. I don't know why President Obama thinks this is so great but he listens to the gurus at Goldman Sachs a lot and I think they have convinced him that it will be good for America.

[Bettie]

3. This

Exactly right.

[BlindTiresias]

19. Yep

[abelenkpe]

29. The president didn't say it would create more jobs in America

Did he?

[Recursion]

32. NAFTA was followed by the only increase in general US wages in decades

Starting in the 70s, wages stagnate. They fall a little during the 80s. We sign NAFTA, they shoot up during the 90s, then stagnate again after W's tax cuts.

[eridani]

33. In the 90s, homelessness and food stamp use also shot up

The slight increase did little but put the brakes on for a couple of years. Average income has been dropping since 1980.

[Recursion]

34. Yes: average income has been dropping since long before free trade agreements (nt)

[eridani]

36. And NAFTA boosted homelessness and food stamp use n/t

[MisterP]

37. "I don't know why President Obama thinks this is so great"

because if someone else were endorsing it there'd be opposition instead of kneejerk excuse-making and granting of the benefit of the doubt

[enlightenment]

2. Warren and Sanders are

highlighting different aspects of this abomination, so I can't choose one over the other.

I disagree with the President.

[NorthCarolina]

4. Yes, it is a multi-faceted screw job for sure. nt

[LWolf]

5. Put Warren and Sanders together.

Combined, that comes the closest to my view.

[whathehell]

6. I agree with Warren + Sanders..

The president is all wrong on this one.

[RiverLover]

7. No question, Warren & Sanders

Just a little tidbit from an excellent article on TPP:

"Jobs provisions: The TPP revives the decades-old debate over whether trade deals create or kill jobs. In November, 23 mostly Democratic senators, including Wyden, Sherrod Brown, Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, and Kirsten Gillibrand, wrote a letter to the Obama administration expressing their concerns that the TPP could weaken the already fragile employment situation in this country: "Trade when done right should create and preserve good American jobs instead of outsourcing them," they wrote, and urged that the TPP not restrict "Buy American" and "Buy Local" government procurement policies. "These trade agreements are often good for large corporations and not so good for American workers," Brown told Congressional Quarterly in March. The USTR responded, "For every $1 billion in American goods and services that we export to other countries, we know that about 5,500 jobs are supported right here at home."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/trans-pacific-partnership-explainer-free-trade-deal

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. I can't say ...

We don't know the negotiating position of the U.S.

NAFT/CAFT were clearly losers ... but I read months ago that a/the sticking point of the negotiations is the U.S.' insistence that the agreement include wage and working condition and environmental protections. If that is the case, I have no/little problem with entering into an agreement with out biggest trade partners.

Also, I have read where the "giving up of state sovereignty is mischaracterized ... just as the "World Court" has no/limited power over the U.S., neither would this trade agreement

[kacekwl]

14. Don't believe ...

everything you read. The words World Court and U.S. insistence raise red flags .

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. But you believe what you have read, no? ...

I will wait for whatever the agreement turns out to be, to be presented to congress for approval or reject. At least, then we have something to form an opinion on.

[Brigid]

9. Yeah, I'll go with Warren and Sanders on this.

I remember NAFTA. I am not buying what Obama is selling.

[Ykcutnek]

10. I never know what to believe when it comes to trade agreements.

The advantages and disadvantages always seem to be blown out of proportion.

So I just take a neutral position.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. I watched a televised Japanese parliament debate about the TPP

Apparently, Japanese lawmakers have more information about it than their American counterparts. Overall, the Japanese left-wing is against it, the right-wing is for it. It is predicted to end up being nearly a zero-sum game in Japan if it does pass, with lots of small losers (like people involved with growing and processing food), and a few big winners.

[kacekwl]

12. Ms Warren ...

and Mr.Sanders right as rain.

[KoKo]

13. Warren & Sanders......for those of us who have been watching this

for a Long Time!

[NorthCarolina]

15. Obama says "Momentum is building" for the TPP. Building where though? Amongst the gen. public?

Or is he referring to some other group? Amongst Congress critters? I hate these non-specific specifics.

[TheKentuckian]

16. B+C. A is the same delusional conartistry as always comes with these screw jobs.

[nationalize the fed]

17. Warren + Sanders

and ironically, Obama in 2008

and Mark Weisbrot:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of 'free trade'

...In case you were wondering why we had to get this information from WikiLeaks, it's because the draft negotiating texts are kept secret from the public. Even members of the US Congress and their staff have extremely limited access...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/19/trans-pacific-partnership-corporate-usurp-congress

If it's so good why is it so secret?

[NorthCarolina]

21. That video was just campaign pandering though...

Like "Public Option", such views are/were never intended to survive beyond the campaign. Just populist speak to garner your vote, nothing more. It makes sense though when you think about it.

If Obama had campaigned on

"a Trans-Pacific Partnership can spur greater economic growth, spur greater jobs growth, set high standards for trade and investment"

instead of

"I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street."

do you think he could have survived the Democratic Party primaries, let alone won the nomination? Nobody would have bought his populist schtick.

[JEB]

18. Selling us further down the river. Sickening.

[msongs]

20. which of the 3 is doing it in secret, violating campaign promises, so we can't block it? nt

[RiverLover]

27. Only Obama is pushing it, of the 3. Not exactly a secret, just not in mainstream media.

And he's not alone, Hillary is one of the many Third Way pushing this.

"...Within the populist Democratic movement, there is a rising tide against once-popular trade deals connecting the U.S. with foreign lands. Clinton has been involved with many of the pacts from her time as first lady, in the Senate and finally, as part of the Obama administration.

Clinton saw herself in the middle of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) during her husband’s presidency. She supported deals with Oman, Chile and Singapore during her tenure in the Senate. As secretary of State, she was a chief advocate as talks commenced surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), one of the largest worldwide deals in recent history...."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/215817-clinton-vs-warren-where-they-disagree

[rurallib]

22. Thom Hartmann calls this one "SHAFTA"

for good reason

I'll go with Warren then Sanders. I think Obama's statement is a stretch at best.

[DCBob]

23. The Chinese and Russians sure dont like it either.

I guess because it would be unfair to them also.

[Ilsa]

25. Interesting comment about the sovereignty issue on Thom

Hartmann today: other nations can force a lawsuit of US subsidies to oil companies and other thieves of our tax dollars by claiming we are unfairly giving them a price advantage.

Any thoughts?

[RB TexLa]

26. Oh God, the "precious Merican sovereignty" whine

[DisgustipatedinCA]

35. It looks like you almost constructed a complete sentence...but where's that pesky predicate?

It would probably help more of us to understand what you're saying if you went ahead and included the rest of the sentence. From your fragment, it looks like you're not into sovereignty.

[RB TexLa]

42. I thought the crying about our precious sovereignty was limited to

the tea party types. But I guess not.

[Phlem]

28. of the 3, Obama is the third way.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/third-way-no-way

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-goldman/redefining-the-center-to_b_804327.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260388/-Third-Way-s-congressional-enablers

[Recursion]

31. I'm with Krugman: It's a big yawn

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/krugman-no-big-deal.html?_r=0

I won't weep if it falls through, or if it is signed.

[bhikkhu]

38. I agree with Krugman too - it doesn't seem like a big deal

It doesn't change much that hasn't already changed. I'd be generally in favor of it as the establishment of a uniform regulatory code, but existing regulations aren't bad. Whether it passes or not, we'll be ok, and its not worth getting too worked up over. Good article.

[SamKnause]

39. Warren and Sanders.

[Scuba]

40. Warren and Sanders. That's the ticket!

[GeorgeGist]

41. Obama is blathering ...

The rich will get richer. Labor will get cheaper.