May Day, 2015: If you do NOT oppose the TPP, you do NOT stand with workers and unions

[cali]

Last edited Fri May 1, 2015, 07:06 AM - Edit history (1)

It's either hypocritical or short sighted to the point of cognitive dissonance for anyone to claim that they both support the corporate tpp and workers. Today is International Workers Day: That's workers, not CEOs, not those that sit on the boards of multinational corporations.

International Workers Day is a celebration of workers and unions. And all the unions that represent workers oppose this obscenity. If you don't stand with the unions on this, you stand against workers. You stand against the unions that have historically fought for those workers.

Which side are you on? The side of corporations and CEOs or the side of Unions and workers?

[KG]

1. !

[TM99]

2. A-fucking-men!

K&R!

[pampango]

3. It's not that simple. The Democratic base does not want to leave NAFTA and the WTO as is.

I don't think that is an anti-worker stance. It is not blind cheerleading for a Democratic president. Democrats are not idiots who do whatever they are told.

Assuming that the majority of Democrats who disagree are all mindless cheerleaders and all republicans who agree are just haters is a little too convenient for my taste.

And the republican base is not on the side of workers, especially unions, even though they oppose TPP and fast track, the UN, the WTO, 'free trade' in general, the UN's Arms Control Treaty, the UN's Disability Rights treaty, etc. etc. etc.

[cali]

4. It's exactly that simple. It won't fix NAFTA.

Whether it's "too convenient" for your "tastes" or not. The fact is that unions vigorously oppose this and corporations support it.
That is simply undeniable.

[Dawgs]

9. Isn't it amazing that some here fight for something supported by corps, CEOs, and Republicans.

And, and at the same time argue that almost all Democrats are wrong.

[stillwaiting]

6. If a Republican becomes President and is outwardly vocal for NAFTA/Free Trade, those

percentages will flip.

I do believe so.

Very few people in this country pay CLOSE attention to much of anything involving politics. Especially not enough to have truly informed opinions. I'll be generous and say 1 out of 4 people do in total (across ALL political parties and people in this country). Some of those get their news from Fox News. That leaves a hell of a lot of Americans whose opinion on this matter is completely irrelevant to me in deciding where I stand on this issue and what the consequences of specific policies are in the short-term and long-term.

We are a VERY unsophisticated population of "citizens".

[pampango]

20. The republican base's opposition to trade agreements is long standing and will not 'flip'

no matter who gets elected. If you can find polls in the last 25 years that shows greater republican than Democratic support for 'free trade', I will gladly stand corrected.

The politicians now who will be punished for a 'YES' vote on fast track and TPP are the republicans in office. 68% of republicans (74% of 'conservative republicans') will hold a pro-fast track vote against their candidate compared to 17% of Democrats.

[cali]

24. Fine, but the reason you keep harping on that is because the forces that

support the tpp are overwhelmingly republican in nature- corporations, republican corporate groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Congressional republicans, republicans in state houses across the country, republican governors. and the forces that oppose it are are overwhelmingly democrats in congress and in states and cities across the nation and groups that are dem allies.

[pampango]

25. I only "harp" on it when someone says "republicans support TPP".

republican groups do support it, but not "republicans".

the forces that support the tpp are overwhelmingly republican in nature ...

Only if you don't count Obama and the majority of the Democratic base as a 'force'.

... the forces that oppose it are are overwhelmingly democrats ...

Only if you don't count the tea party and the majority of the republican party as a 'force'.

[cali]

26. how do you account for the fact that democrats do not support free trade

in general? They hate it, in fact. Sorry, but you are flat wrong. Corporations support it. Repuke lawmakers lsupport it. Many rank and file repubs support it.

I can't believe you're actually making the argument that there's some sort of parity between democrats who support it and oppose it.

And are there any recent- and by recent, I mean the last month or so- polls that show democrat and republican support for it?

[pampango]

29. Then why do they think that TPP and TTIP are 'good ideas'? Are they not 'free trade'?

And are there any recent- and by recent, I mean the last month or so- polls that show democrat and republican support for it?

I have searched and can't find any. Have you? I would love to see them. I imagine they will show increasing Democratic opposition to TPP and continuing republican opposition but it would be nice to actually see that.

When I googled it the other day, all I came up with in recent polls was one done in Canada, not the US, and didn't show partisan attitudes, just overall. 48% didn't know enough or had no opinion, 41% supported and 11% opposed TPP. But it did not show which ends of the political spectrum that support and opposition came from.

http://angusreid.org/trans-pacific-partnership/

But that is Canada not the US and there's not indication of who supports and who opposes it.

I can't believe you're actually making the argument that there's some sort of parity between democrats who support it and oppose it.

They hate it, in fact. Sorry, but you are flat wrong.

I understand that 'republicans support tpp" because republican groups support it and "Democrats oppose it" because Democratic groups oppose it. If you think the opinions of the respective bases is irrelevant (therefore not adding to 'parity') to a determination of partisan support or opposition, I can't argue with that.

I have not seen the polls that you have apparently seen that show that Democrats hate it.

[cali]

27. Found something interesting re support for ftas

January
2015
U.S. Polling Shows Strong Opposition to Current U.S. Trade Agreement

http://www.citizen.org/documents/polling-memo.pdf

[pampango]

30. At that link it seemed to show that republican opposition to trade agreements was stronger

than Democratic opposition but they never really came out and posted specific percentages for each. They quote findings from several polls, most of which have already been posted to DU, but did not offer specific partisan breakdowns.

It did who strong opposition, which most of the polls I have posted show as well, but it did not disprove, as best I could make out, that that opposition is led by republicans, not Democrats.

[stillwaiting]

35. Where did you get this information from? Link would be great.

And, my points in my previous post regarding the overwhelming apathy and ignorance of the average American voter remains the same.

I think that average Democrats have become much less trusting of "free trade" agreements over the past few decades as well. Many will trust Obama regarding the TPP and "free trade", but many of those same people will not trust a future Republican President and Republican Congress to negotiate "free trade" agreements on their behalf. Of course, that is just my opinion.

[pampango]

42. Here is the link. I put in one post and not the other.

http://fasttrackpoll.info/

[morningfog]

10. The republicans broadly support TPP.

[pampango]

21. republican politicians - Yes; republicans - No. n/t

[Enthusiast]

17. It is blind cheerleading for a Democratic president.

[pampango]

23. The bases: cheerleaders vs. haters? "Long live the politicians" said the populist. "They know more

than we know. Trust them." Long live democracy!

The republican base is way ahead of you on this. They oppose fast track and TPP and they know that their politicians are going to sell them out. They don't trust them and will try to punish them with right-wing, populist primary opponents next year.

[Enthusiast]

28. You have it all backwards.

[sabrina 1]

37. You couldn't be more wrong. Opposition to the TPP is so great that they had to postpone it a year

ago, something that took so much opposition from across the political spectrum that they simply could not ignore it.

Most of the opposition is being led by Unions, Liberal Organizations and Labor groups but it is the PEOPLE now against the powerful Globalists.

And most Republicans in Congress support it while most Democrats oppose it.

This is really no longer 'left/right', it is Americans V Global Corporations. That is how massive the opposition is to this Corporate Coup.

[pampango]

40. "This is really no longer 'left/right', it is Americans V Global Corporations..."

You are entitled to your opinion. Just be careful to watch what you say at those tea party meetings. They may agree with you on this but you may find there is stiil a "left" and a "right" when it comes to other issues.

Opposition to the TPP is so great that they had to postpone it a year ...

Agreed. And most of that base opposition is from republicans and the polls showed last year that retribution from voters for a "YES" vote on fast track or TPP was going to be much, much stronger from the republican base directed at their congressional candidates than from Democrats.

As a result, politicians in DC decided that it was better to delay this until 2015 so that the republican base might be more easily ignored in the hope they would forget about this by the 2016 primaries when they have threatened to run far-right candidates against those who vote "YES".

[sabrina 1]

36. The title could have asked, 'which side are you on, Republicans' or Democrats':

Obama and Republicans Agree on the Trans-Pacific Partnership … Unfortunately

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the TPP “Nafta on steroids” (“corporate coup d’état” is also good). As the economist Dean Baker said to Bill Moyers, “This really is a deal that’s being negotiated by corporations for corporations, and any benefit it provides to the bulk of the population of this country will be purely incidental.” At this point, nothing about Obama should surprise us, but it’s worth noting that in 2008, as a presidential candidate, he said, “I voted against Cafta, never supported Nafta, and will not support Nafta-style trade agreements in the future.”

All of which is making for some very odd alliances and demonstrating that “far right” and “far left” labels are increasingly useless. That’s because this is a struggle between transnational corporations and just about everyone else.

......

The opposition to fast-tracking appears strong. As Patrick Woodall, a senior policy advocate for Food & Water Watch, said to me, “The forces pushing fast-track are huge, but there is unbelievable public opposition, and at this point the wind is at our back.”

Yes, this is a Right Wing Corporate abomination. And to get it passed means Obama has to work against his own party and with the Corporate Party who are mostly on board with anything that screws the working class.

[pampango]

41. Or which base are you with, republican or Democratic? It is not that simple. n/t

[rhett o rick]

63. I lost your logic train. You say, "The Democratic base does not want to leave NAFTA and the WTO as

is." I assume you have links to back up that claim. But let's say that's correct. That doesn't have anything to do with the TPP. Unless one believes the bullcrap that the TPP will fix NAFTA and the WTO. If one thinks that, I would love to see some evidence.

Seems to me that unions, environmentalists, Doctors Without Borders, progressives are all against the TPP and those that favor it are corporations and conservatives that are clearly non-union.

[Hoyt]

5. What about workers in foreign countries that would benefit from investment there?

My granddad stayed on his little dirt farm -- unlike so many who left to go work for Ford and other emerging big corporations -- but he still benefited from the better wages those companies paid, compared to scratching out a living.

I think we would benefit as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I was watching the Pacquiao-Mayweather coverage...

I was watching the Pacquiao-Mayweather coverage and Manny was talking about how he was homeless at 14 and how his dad had to kill the family dog for dinner...

How do we ever help these people lift themselves up if we don't buy their goods?

[Hoyt]

33. Exactly, and invest in their country. But folks here are too worried about their jobs, to care.

The fact is, to most of the world, most of our workers are the 1%ers.

And, No, that does not mean I don't care about our workers, including me.

But, the truth is, we've taken more than our share of the world's wealth and resources. Time to give some of it back.

If Obama can force companies to pay decent wages -- not necessarily equal to ours at first -- then that's a good thing for everyone.

I can assure you a Mexican who just got a job at one of the new auto plants that is paying $8/hour (plus benefits) is better off than he/she was when scratching out a living at less than $1 a day.

[sabrina 1]

47. Mexican farmers were destroyed by NAFTA and this will do even more harm. If you call NAFTA good for

poor people in poor countries, all I can say is you have not been following the plight of those who suffered under NAFTA.

Millions of small businesses in Mexico were destroyed by NAFTA, people who previously were able to make a living, found themselves starving.

Maybe it's time to start posting the facts about NAFTA again not just from the American workers' pov, but from the poor farmers and small business owners in Mexico pov.

The ONLY people who benefit from these 'agreements' are Big Corporations.

[Hoyt]

48. Mexican farmers are now getting jobs with hourly wages that exceed what they made in a week before.

Same thing happened here in the early 1900s when dirt farmers found jobs in factories like Ford.

They weren't making a living before. Who are you kidding?

[sabrina 1]

52. You just confirmed my point. NAFTA destroyed Mexico's agricultural culture. Then took advantage of

the decimation to get cheap labor for Corporations.

I'm not going to waste time on this, it's been well documented all over the place, including here on DU. The tragic destruction of once self sufficient farming communities and tens of thousands of small, independent businesses has been covered extensively. Not to mention the jobs lost in this country.

Documentaries, articles, statistics from the Mexican Govt all point to NAFTA as one of the worst trade agreements that completely destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people.

There really is not 'other side' to this. Not just jobs were destroyed, but a whole culture where people provided for themselves and their families for generations.

Reduced to nothing, yes, the Corporations took advantage of the cheap labor this destruction provided. Many came here, forced to live lives underground to try to feed their families back home. More cheap labor for Corporations.

And the TPP, according to economists like Robert Reich, is NAFTA on Steroids.

It simply has to be defeated. And hopefully it will be with so much opposition it should be.

NAFTA worked exactly as it was supposed to, for Global Corporations. For the working class, it was a disaster.

[Hoyt]

58. Reich said he still thinks NAFTA is good, should have had labor and environmental protections.

That's exactly what Obama is adding.

Mexican farmers were starving. Maintaining that to keep Americans by and large fat and happy doesn't seem very neighborly, especially since we stole their good land.

And, polls in Mexico indicate most people support trade, not trying to trade among themselves in the hope 300 years from now workers will be making $1/hour. They want investment so that their workers will prosper.

You guys don't want them to have it because you fear your wages might stagnate or something, and you'd rather it be them and not you. I get that.

If you read government reports, Mexico did nothing the make sure corporation paid their fair share. That is not NAFTA's fault. I think Mexico decided to get as much foreign investment as they can, then they can pump up minimum wage, etc. That's not a bad philosophy if you want to help as many of your poor people as possible long-term.




http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34733.pdf

"Views of NAFTA within Mexico are mixed.

"Media reports tend to highlight the anti-NAFTA sentiment in the Mexican agricultural sector, but according to an extensive non-partisan opinion survey conducted by two independent groups in Mexico, the majority of the Mexican population views NAFTA favorably. . . . . . . ."


And, or course, we know that Mexico specifically asked to be party to the TPP. In fact, they are the ones who asked for NAFTA.

[sabrina 1]

60. 'They' meaning governments.

The elite can sit in their comfortable homes and talk 'rationally' about the 'benefits' of NAFTA. I prefer to listen to the people who were the most affected.

The fact is NAFTA destroyed Mexico's farming industry. And farmers were desperate to try to feed their families. Driving many previously independent farmers to leave their families and homes and take the risky journey north to try to make money to send back home. Bush, airc, was oddly supportive of migrant workers, then it occurred to me, why.

His followers were devastated by his support for undocumented workers, but we on the Left understood it. Cheap labor, here and in Mexico, the goal of the Global Corporations, began its success with NAFTA, and now will continue IF they succeed in getting the TPP passed, which I hope they will not.

[Hoyt]

62. They now have the opportunity to make more in an hour than they did a week before.

I guess you are also against immigrants from Mexico. I think they should be made citizens immediately.

[Hoyt]

50. Here's a pretty balanced report that concludes with --

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34733.pdf

"Views of NAFTA within Mexico are mixed. Media reports tend to highlight the anti-NAFTA sentiment in the Mexican agricultural sector, but according to an extensive non-partisan opinion survey conducted by two independent groups in Mexico, the majority of the Mexican population
views NAFTA favorably. A public opinion survey conducted in 2006 showed that the majority of the Mexican population favors trade liberalization with the United States and Canada. The survey, conducted by the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales (Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, COMEXI), also showed that Mexicans have a very positive view of globalization, though there is some division on whether NAFTA should be renegotiated and whether Mexico should continue forming new trade agreements with other countries. . . . . . ."


And, or course, we know that Mexico specifically asked to be party to the TPP. In fact, they are the ones who asked for NAFTA.

[BainsBane]

7. I am really sick of this shit

I happen to oppose TPP, but this constant demonization of Democratic voters is obnoxious. I am sick to death of people who make ordinary Democrats the enemy. If you think this is supposed to persuade anyone, you don't have the first clue.

So you keep insulting people. I can think of no better way to gin up support for TPP.

[cali]

8. OK. I'm not telling anyone what to do. Just pointing out the obvious.

And frankly, I don't understand people who decide an issue in the way you suggest people will. Furthermore, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything with this post.

[morningfog]

11. People in the real world do not take political positions

based on spite, which is what the poster is suggesting. I read that a lot and it's silly every time. "I'll show you!!! Long live the TPP! You made do this!"

[Dont call me Shirley]

15. Please understand, TPP and TIPP will completely overrule the laws of this land! The secret

Trade Court will overrule any national laws the corporations contest, without any oversight or check and balance. Member nations will be paying "lost" profits awarded by these secret courts. They will get money for nothing, what a deal! This is the end of national sovereignty!

This is plutocrats/oligarchs/big corporations against you and me and they WIN! We lose and we lose all we have! The corporations will take every last crumb we own. Mark my words! This is not democrat against democrat, this is literally the rich waging war against the rest of us.

[ibewlu606]

12. Kicked!

As a labor activist, I will do everything in my power to inform my membership and the public at large that ANY politician supporting TPP is nothing more than a corporate whore.

[cali]

13. Here's to you on this May Day!

[appalachiablue]

14. Great post Cali. No to TPP. And Happy May Day!

[Enthusiast]

16. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Thanks, cali!

[cali]

18. thanks for the kick, E

and here's to the unions and workers. May they see a happy resurgence this year.

[d_legendary1]

19. We have to put this in terms people can understand

For Corporations:

Free Trade = Outsourcing

Outsourcing = Saving $$$

Saving $$$ = Higher Profits

For Workers:

Free Trade = Outsourcing

Outsourcing = Unemployment

Unemployment = Hard Times


How does this help the worker achieve the American Dream?

[pampango]

31. Tell that to German workers or Swedish or Canadian or Australian.

They are achieving the "American Dream' quite well, thank you.

Somehow 'free trade' has not devastated their workers or their unions. Their unions and middle class are much stronger than ours despite the "havoc" that 'free trade' (at 2-3 times the level that the US experiences) has caused to them. Their distribution of income is much, much, much more equitable than ours despite their being 'afflicted' with a surplus of 'free trade'.

[cali]

32. You're actually arguing that because free trade hasn't harmed workers in Germany

that's a reason to expect the TPP, despite the history of how all other FTAs in this country have failed workers, will be a net benefit?

whoa. that's one bad argument.

[pampango]

38. No. I'm arguing that 'free trade' does not harm workers; lousy, conservative domestic policies do.

If 'free trade' harmed workers, Germans, Swedes and Canadians would not allow it in their countries. Their workers have power there as evidenced by the strength of their liberal domestic policies. And 'free trade' had somehow been forced on them their workers would be much worse off than ours since 'free trade' is at much higher levels there.

If 'free trade' harmed workers, American workers would have been much better off under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover - when tariffs were high and there was no 'free trade' at all. They were not. Income inequality set a record we still have not matched under those republican predecessors to FDR. Why? Lousy conservative domestic policies on taxes, regulation, the safety net and unions. The absence of 'free trade' did not help our workers, at all.

If 'free trade' harmed workers, income equality in Germany and Sweden is among the world's highest. Why? Because they have great liberal domestic policies on taxes, regulations, the safety net and unions. The critical factor here is not the 'free trade' (though progressive countries all seem to choose to have a lot of it) but what kind of domestic policies a country has to insure that the benefits of all economic activity - domestic or international - is widely shared. Germany, Sweden and others do what FDR did: great liberal domestic policies and plenty of trade.

If 'free trade' harmed workers, then slashing the safety net, low/regressive taxes, deregulation, Taft-Hartley and other anti-union legislation (none of which exist in progressive countries) are not really problems at all. Let's blame all our workers' problems on NAFTA. That is much simpler, it shifts some of the blame to poor foreign workers AND we will get a lot more support from the republican base on 'free trade' than we will for strong unions, higher taxes, tighter regulations and better welfare benefits - so its a more achievable goal than really liberal domestic policies would be.

I was responding to a poster who did not mention TPP, just 'free trade', so I was not intending this as a show of support for TPP. Many here argue that TPP is not really about 'free trade' anyway so my comments to the poster were not intended to make any point about TPP.

[stillwaiting]

44. What do you think "free trade" agreements + "lousy, conservative domestic policies" yields?

Because that is the reality we are dealing with.

The U.S. is not Scandinavia, Germany, Australia, or Canada.

We don't have the much stronger progressive social policies and protections that these countries have for their citizens.

So, we have to address that reality when considering whether or not the TPP/TTIP is good for the working, middle, and poverty classes in the good 'ole U.S. of A.

It doesn't make any sense to point to those other countries because we are not going to have their protections and policies in place for us if/when these "free trade" agreements go in to effect. So, we need to focus on what impact these agreements will have on us without having the luxury of living in a strongly progressive nation. We just don't have laws and regulations that protect our workers the way that these other countries do. And, I doubt we will in the near future. So, what does that mean for us?

[pampango]

49. About the same as no "free trade agreements" + "lousy, conservative domestic policies."

That is what our history shows. That is what the modern world shows. That is why FDR did what he did.

What our history and modern progressive countries show is that you have to reverse the "lousy, conservative domestic policies" if ANYTHING ELSE is going to help.
With those lousy policies intact, you can have ZERO 'free trade' (before FDR) and workers, the middle class and unions will suffer horribly.
With those lousy policies intact, you can have MODEST 'free trade' (like the US has now - nothing like progressive countries have but more than Coolidge and Hoover allowed) and workers, the middle class and unions will suffer terribly.

The U.S. is not Scandinavia, Germany, Australia, or Canada.

We don't have the much stronger progressive social policies and protections that these countries have for their citizens.

And, I doubt we will in the near future. So, what does that mean for us?

All very true. But we did not have progressive social policies and protections in the 1920's either. What did that mean for FDR? He did not seek to create a strong middle class by going after imports and exports. He went about expanding them.

If you and I agree with FDR that we have to have "much stronger progressive social policies and protections", I would suggest that we work towards them just as Democrats did back in the day.

We can't because republicans won't allow it? So we have to do SOMETHING even if there is no proof that it will help?

We all know that the republican base sure won't help us with "much stronger progressive social policies and protections" but they seem opposed to 'free trade' even more than we are so perhaps "republicans won't allow it" will not apply to stopping trade agreements. Perhaps their base can influence their congress people just like they do on immigration, budget deficits, debt ceilings, etc.

If the ghost of FDR came back for a visit, I doubt he would say, "Hey if you can't get much stronger progressive social policies and protections because republicans won't let you, then just trade. It's an easier target. A lot of republicans don't like it too."

[d_legendary1]

61. The German People don't like Free Trade Agreements either

http://www.dw.de/german-activists-turn-out-in-force-to-protest-ttip-trade-deal/a-18391723

"Opposition to the TTIP is fierce in Germany, with a recent poll from YouGov showing that 43 percent of people thought the pact would be bad for the country, against 30 percent who see it as good.

In another sign of the degree of resistance to the agreement in Germany, one million of the 1.7 million signatures collected in Europe by the European collective "Stop TTIP" came from Germany - ten times the number in France and 50 times that in Italy.

Critics of the free trade agreement, which is supported by the German government, say it could lead to a lowering of health and safety standards, particularly with regard to the EU's strict regulations on food additives, genetically modified crops and the use of pesticides."

Their goverment thinks its a good idea but the people know what's up.

[NaturalHigh]

34. Yep.

[seabeyond]

39. i do not sit well with, .... you are 'gainst us, or fer us. mentality.

[cali]

43. fine. but facts are facts. You cannot say you stand with unions who unequivocally oppose

the tpp, if you support it.

We all have things that don't sit well with us.

[LanternWaste]

54. No doubt there will always be the pretense by others who claim implicit knowledge...

No doubt there will always be the pretense by others who claim implicit knowledge of where were may stand predicated only on their own false dichotomies.

I've been called everything from a subversive to an authoritarian to a white knight because both their perspectives and their spectrum are limited by an unshakable and righteous bias.

Allow them their limitations, and the base justifications made to distinguish otherwise.

[underahedgerow]

45. I like NAFTA and I like TPP and I like international trade agreements and open borders like the EU

and in spite of the problems each situation presents, I see great potential and logic for them all in the future. We are planet that is growing rapidly in terms of technology, interaction, information and transport. Without codified interaction and sets of rules there would be no common goals that protect workers, corporations and the environment. The more powerful and prosperous countries gain controlled access to resources and smaller more vulnerable countries are made stronger by access to modern technology and environmental protections.

Call me crazy but I also completely advocate the concept of open borders between the USA, Mexico and Canada, an idea that will one day become reality but not anytime too soon, I'm sure!

Mexico’s international presence has been invigorated by the growth of manufacturing output, which has tripled since it entered into NAFTA and no jobs have been 'lost' in the USA due to NAFTA. In addition, Mexico’s manufactured exports have multiplied five times over the past 15 years. The USA, Mexico and Canada have all benefited greatly by trading with each other especially in the agricultural markets.

The object of TPP isn't to 'take jobs away from US workers' and give tons of cash to Giant Corporations, it's about strengthening relationships with the smaller, more vulnerable member countries and improving their worker's conditions and environment protections through the use of legislation, regulations and rules within the agreement. If their products are required to be produced in humane and more sanitary conditions, we all benefit as a global community.

Finally, we have to embrace this growing, interactive world, it's changing now and will continue evolving very rapidly. Strong trade agreements lay the groundwork to create protections for the future of business and future generations of the people involved, living and working. We have to look ahead to potential and possibilities and the time to frame and protect these possibilities is now. If we don't enter into agreements now that afford these global protections for the future there could come a time when it's too little too late. This thing has already been in the works for over 20 years, so it's time to rhyme it with bucket and get it done.

Like I always say, anyone can oppose something that's the easy way out. It takes much more strength to support and advocate for change and progress.

[cali]

46. thanks for the thoughtful response.

and in spite of the problems each situation presents, I see great potential and logic for them all in the future. We are planet that is growing rapidly in terms of technology, interaction, information and transport. Without codified interaction and sets of rules there would be no common goals that protect workers, corporations and the environment. The more powerful and prosperous countries gain controlled access to resources and smaller more vulnerable countries are made stronger by access to modern technology and environmental protections.

Yes, we're growing rapidly on a global scale in terms of the specifics you name. Yes, we need codified interactions. It's HOW those codifications work- and for whom they work- that's the rub. The history of U.S. ftas with other nations, is not encouraging on that point. Corporations have frequently not hewn to the protections that are enshrined in those agreements. Compliance is lax and difficult to enforce. Access to resources frequently means exploitation of those resources. That's why many of us speak about "fair" trade over "free" trade.

Mexico’s international presence has been invigorated by the growth of manufacturing output, which has tripled since it entered into NAFTA and no jobs have been 'lost' in the USA due to NAFTA. In addition, Mexico’s manufactured exports have multiplied five times over the past 15 years. The USA, Mexico and Canada have all benefited greatly by trading with each other especially in the agricultural markets.

That's just false. Small Mexican farmers have been decimated, post NAFTA. The lie that NO jobs have been lost due to NAFTA, is absurd. Even the most avid of its defenders don't claim that.

What you are advocating for is no more likely to protect the environment, workers, health or human rights than any of the other ftas of the past 20+ years. The beneficiaries have largely been corporations and large stockholders.

Does Columbia ring a bell with you? The open season on labor and human rights activists, post the Colombian USA fta?

You are relying on what you wish were the results, not the reality. It's revisionist history.

[Elwood P Dowd]

53. Its all I can do to keep from falling out laughing at this.

Do you really think the Wall Street crooks and corporate crooks along with with all their front groups and bought and paid for repuke politicians are pushing TPP for your feel good, pie in the sky, ideas? They're spending millions lobbying for this piece of shit deal just like they did for NAFTA, CAFTA, Columbia, Korea, and all the other fake free trade deals that have cost us millions of lost jobs and 10 trillion dollars in current account deficits. Just how many times do we have to get fooled by these investment/outsourcing scams masquerading under the feel good name of "free trade" or "partnership"?

[underahedgerow]

55. You can laugh all you like but in the real world global trade & commerce is going to move

forward, change and grow. Business is going to be leveraged on a global platform no matter how much the little guy yells about it.

It's better to have agreements and legislation in place now, especially being driven by a good, honest and highly intelligent man -in fact the most powerful man - on the planet.

I would rather have it piloted now by President Obama now than Jeb Bush and his pile of buttwipes in a few years.

[stillwaiting]

56. If you get Fast Track approved and Jeb Bush gets elected, he and his pile of buttwipes

will be doing whatever they want with the freedom that Fast Track will grant President Obama.

Fast Track will last 6 years.

Probably prudent to not give the store away to a future Republican Executive if we can help it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

57. Yep, Bush used fast track for his distructive trade deals until it expired in 2007. (nm)

[historylovr]

51. K & R

[AzDar]

59. K & R

[colsohlibgal]

64. K&R!!!