Just got an update from my homeslice, Obama...

[PosterChild]

I understand the skepticism about this. I want to set the record straight.

Right now, we have an opportunity to set the most progressive trade agreement in our nation's history -- with enforceable labor and environmental protections we simply can't count on other nations to pursue.

Here's why this means so much to me: I want to make sure that any deal we reach reflects our nation's values, in a way that hasn't always been true in the past. That's why I've said I'll refuse to sign any agreement that doesn't put American workers first.

But as long as 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders, we don't have the option to sit back and let others set the rules. We need to take this opportunity to level the playing field -- because when we're competing on equal ground, American workers win.

If you agree it's important for America to lead on trade, join OFA supporters by adding your name today.

I've staked my presidency on middle-class economics, and fought hard for policies that ensure that anyone who's willing to work hard and play by the rules can get a fair shot.

We've made a lot of progress over the past six years -- rebounding from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, strengthening our manufacturing sector, and growing forward-looking industries like renewable energy.

We can't go back -- and we can't leave it to nations like China to write the rules for the global economy.

This is personal for me. I understand the skepticism about this, or any, trade deal. I've met folks across the country who still feel burned by agreements of the past. Those are the people I came to Washington to fight for.

That's what this is about for me. This is our chance to do better, to get it right.

I hope you'll agree. Over the last few months, OFA supporters across the country have stood up to ask the hard questions on this issue -- to make sure the outcome is good not just for our economy, but for working families.

If you want to see America lead the way to establish a truly progressive trade agreement, add your name with OFA today:

http://my.barackobama.com/Lead-On-Trade

Thank you,

Barack Obama

[cantbeserious]

1. Hey Obama - How About Protecting American Workers First Not Second, Third, Or ... Last

eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. I'll post the quote for the reading impaired ...

Here's why this means so much to me: I want to make sure that any deal we reach reflects our nation's values, in a way that hasn't always been true in the past. That's why I've said I'll refuse to sign any agreement that doesn't put American workers first.

[Fred Sanders]

21. What part of that folks do not understand is as confusing to me as to you.

[Iliyah]

77. a whole lot

[cali]

25. he has lied repeatedly about the tpp

Why anyone would believe him at this juncture is a mystery. As Charlie Pierce just wrote, he can go pound sand.

[Drahthaardogs]

64. Kind of like "everyone has to sacrifice

turned out everyone just means federal employees. Sorry Hoss, tired of my one percent raises, sequesters, and shut downs. Let all employees see how you treated feds. Beware.

[Cheese Sandwich]

29. We don't believe him because we have been lied to so many times.

Last edited Tue May 12, 2015, 10:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Sounds like an exact repeat of NATFA, WTO, PNTR, etc....

At some point you realize they will say anything to push these treaties through, including lies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. Please point to the lies of THIS president. n/t

[Cheese Sandwich]

46. here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026663151

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. So you've got nothing, huh? ...

Your holding a differing opinion, one based on incomplete information, does NOT make the statements of the more informed person, a lie.

[Bobbie Jo]

61. That was lame.

Answer the question.

[Vattel]

65. His administration has been very dishonest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/30/the-obama-administrations-illusionary-job-gains-from-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. As the fact-checker notes ...

job/revenue creation, as all economic predictions, are based on assumptions. And any/every assumption can be questioned ... that does not mean the results based on the accepted assumption is being dishonest.

[Vattel]

69. If you can't address the arguments that are the basis for awarding the pinnochios,

then you got nothing.

[840high]

51. He is lying again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. It hasn't been established that President Obama has lied in the first case. n/t

[Cha]

55. the President doesn't lie.. but anonymous posters on the internet spew ignorant cheap pot shots

at him 24/7.

[840high]

59. You have your opinion - I have

mine - are you in his brain? How would you know.

[Go Vols]

114. .

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

[840high]

115. Thank you - interesting.

[sabrina 1]

121. Then SHOW it to us. And why is Mitch McConnell telling us WHY he is supporting you on this?

He said today in an interview that he was urging his colleagues to support Obama NOT because of THIS President but because, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS 'Because THIS is a SIX YEAR BILL and when it passes it will give the Republican President who will replace Obama in less than two years the power to make trade deals for this country'.

Now THAT is scary. Obama fights hard to give these powers to the NEXT PRESIDENT! And that is why Republicans are supporting him. Does he not KNOW that they are USING him to get this through?

[okaawhatever]

2. For those of us who have read the data about NAFTA & its effects on our economy, and are

familiar with what is trying to be accomplished here, this is a pretty good deal. I support it. I don't think it will cost Americans their jobs AND NEITHER DID NAFTA.
I don't buy into the hype. There is too much empirical data out there to just believe that NAFTA sold us out. Sorry folks, I support the TPP unless the final version is something completely different from what has been discussed so far.

[PosterChild]

9. Thanks for speaking up...

... honestly, Americans are fearful of doing business with Canada and Mexico? It's pretty hard to believe the level of FUD.

[okaawhatever]

16. Canada & Mexico are our number 1 & 2 export countries. They account for 24% of all our exports. Not

only that the CBO has stated that the effect on jobs has been almost zero.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Link please. n/t

[okaawhatever]

50. Here you go. I also posted several articles that show NAFTA didn't cost jobs. They are further down

the thread.


https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. I requested it more as an accessible reference than anything ...

NAFTA=Job Killer is a frequent narrative here ... it's good to have empirical data to consider.

Thanks.

[Fred Sanders]

22. Who is afraid of Japan opening up it's high wage, huge economy to American goods? Is fear going

to also rule the left wing?

Japan is not afraid of Vietnam, Malaysia, or Burnei overwhelming Japanese workers, law and environment.

[arcane1]

33. Are they not allowed to buy our goods now? How does the TPP change that?

Hell, Japanese corporations have literally OWNED 4 out of my last 5 employers, including my current one. So even "American jobs" aren't always "American", when we labor every day to send our money to Tokyo

[Fred Sanders]

35. An argument against international investment in America creating jobs, including yours, is not an argument at all.

Seriously, Japanese capital opening car plants in America subject to American laws is a bad thing?

[arcane1]

41. It's evidence that our mutual economies are already quite "open" as-is.

[okaawhatever]

56. There are currently high tariffs on American cars and some American agriculture products. We

have a small tariff on their cars. Getting Japan to drop their tariffs has been a HUGE deal. I think they've agreed to a 10 year phase out of tariffs on beef & rice, pork is still being negotiated and cars are on a mutual phase out. There are other ag products that will be affected, but getting Japan to drop the tariffs on beef and rice was a huge deal.

Japan has a really screwy agriculture system with a lot of small farms that are protected, but highly inefficient leading consumers to pay much more for their food. It has a lot to do with their electoral system but the farmers are like our rural red staters. Their influence is not proportionate to their numbers due to something similar to gerrymandering.

People don't realize how significant the ag tariff reduction is. Obama had hoped to come to an agreement when he was there months ago. Most people didn't think he would ever get them dropped.

[cali]

94. bullshit

The barriers to cars are not tariffs, which are low.

[brentspeak]

122. Wow, you almost make me believe

you're not being paid to post that. And the interchange between you and the OP is so very convincing and authentic-seeming.

(sarcasm)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. It's a nice letter.

But if he wants support, I think he should show us what's in this agreement that is supported by Boehner, McConnell, et al. I don't trust anything supported by the GOP, most especially if I'm not permitted to see what's in it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. You, and I, will get to see it when the parties have reached a final agreement ...

Then, we will have 120 days to read it (though I doubt many will and fewer will understand what's in it), and Congress to discuss/debate it, and a minimum of 60 days before it is signed, or not signed.

[PosterChild]

19. Thanks for the information ! /nt/

[TheKentuckian]

79. At which point we are dependent on the TeaPubliKlans to protect out interests for the first time

since Ike at best because they have the votes.

You are often quick to say the votes aren't there, well the votes are sure as fuck not there even if you could hold EVERY Democrat in line (which is often a dubious proposition).

Pass fast track and nothing stops a bad deal the pukes want.

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. Okay. n/t

[PosterChild]

12. You will get to see what's in it,

When it come up for a vote. You can’t negotiate something as complex as this in public

The reason is that a complex multinational agreement requires many different trade offs and compromises. We seek what is good for us, they seek what is good for them. The whole package must be on average good for all, but any one provision, in issolation, that may be good for us will be viewed as bad by them, and what, in issolation, may be good for them will be viewed as bad by us. It's only by putting them together that you get a deal that can be considered good by all.

When the various provisions are discussed piecmeal and in public, judgements are made on issolated provisions without understanding how they might fit into an overall agreement. Opportunities to understand what they are interested in, to explore various possibilities, and to experiment with new combinations are lost. Opportunities are lost- to all sides. Progress is stalled, stasis sets in, and then regression.

So the best strategy is to proceed with a level of cofidentiality, bring in experts and representatives of various interests as needed, and then provide a complete package for examimation, debate, and an up or down vote.

This is, by the way, the way the Iran nuclear treaty is being pursued. It's the only way such agreement can be acomplished.

[arcane1]

37. "Join me, and the republicans in congress, in supporting this deal" probably wouldn't sound as good.

[ucrdem]

5. Unfortunately those dear friends of his turned out to be the treacherous types.

Sigh.

[neverforget]

14. Damn you Democrats for not voting with Republicans!!!!

[ucrdem]

26. They voted with the Tbaggers.

Made for each other.

[neverforget]

30. Lulz

[Cha]

57. Really? the teabaggers? omz

[MissDeeds]

27. Exactly

The president had the support of the Republicans, but only one Democrat. I guess he thinks the whole party is out of step for not supporting him. Hello? If the Republicans are siding with you, you must be on the wrong damn side of the issue.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. Cute. n/t

[CharlotteVale]

20. Perfect analogy.

[pa28]

23. Remember. Nobody could have predicted the transmission will fall out as soon as it's off the lot.

[JaneyVee]

7. HE CALLED HIMSELF BY HIS NAME AND NOT TITLE?!

[PosterChild]

15. Hey, he's my homeslice . ..

... me and him, we're on a first name basis!

[Cha]

62. What to make of this!?!!!!!!

[cali]

8. No. just no

[WillyT]

10. The Problem Is... Once Burned Twice Shy... I Don't Believe Him For A Hot Second...

Sorry.

[PosterChild]

17. Victum of FUD? /nt/

[WillyT]

24. I Have NO IDEA What FUD Is...

[PosterChild]

31. It's an acronym for

Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Its a tactic used by demagogues,

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

I used the term facitiously, just to give a quick reply. I didn't mean for it to be taken seriously.

[WillyT]

38. Thank You !!! - And No Sweat...

I really did not know.

[MissDeeds]

39. Ditto

I don't believe him either.

[bigwillq]

18. No, thanks, homie (nt)

[SamKnause]

28. Not buying it.

Mr. President,

How did that trade deal you signed with South Korea in October,

2011 turn out ???

I'll answer that for you.

It increased our trade deficit by billions and we lost

75,000 jobs from 2011 to 2014.

I don't trust the lobbyists, the corporations, or the current

crop of politicians to write or pass a trade deal that will

benefit U.S. workers.

They are not trying to raise the standards of living or wages

for the countries we trade with.

Their intention is to lower our standards and wages.

I trust Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Robert Reich.

[PosterChild]

44. Almost , but not quite as bad as NAFTA...

... more FUD

Here are a couple if good pieces on trade deal job losses and gains - spoiler alert - both sides are being deceptive:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/07/public-citizens-misleading-math-on-the-korea-free-trade-agreement/

http://wapo.st/1ySV6ap

[X_Digger]

32. Let's fix this part-- "95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders"

How about that? Let's make sure we can fucking afford to buy our own shit, ehn?

[PosterChild]

47. No, we can't . ...

.., modern manufacturing processes depend on high volumes and complex, integrated suply chains. We need global markets. The world needs global markets. A "fortress America" would be a very poor America. Americans wouldn't stand for it.

I sure won't .

[X_Digger]

67. aka, "Let's fuck ourselves before China fucks us!" No, thanks.

[PosterChild]

116. What would really fuck us over . ..

... would be to build a moat, put up a wall and try to base our economy on just what we can produce by ourselves and only for ourselves . I instant econimic colapse . No thank you.

[X_Digger]

117. We're paying better wages than Viet Nam, we have room to lose! Fuck that shit.

[PowerToThePeople]

34. "rebounding from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression"

Who has rebounded? My personal financial situation is worse than it ever has been my entire life.

[Maedhros]

36. Mr. President, please stop using the word "progressive."

It's clear that you have no fucking idea what it means.

[Fred Sanders]

42. Seriously, you forgot the sarcasm emoticon. Looks like Republicans have found their wedge issue.

[PosterChild]

45. + up! /nt/

[840high]

53. ...^ that

[Cha]

63. It's "clear" you have "no fucking idea" how much PROGRESS the President has made in 7 years in

Office.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Here's what Ron Wyden had to say in an email about his vote against TPA

" Earlier today, I joined almost all of my Democratic colleagues and voted against moving forward with the "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority bill.

Here's why:

As I told you last month, it is critical that any new trade agreements protect American workers, level the playing field, protect human rights, raise labor standards, protect the environment, and defend a free and open internet.

If we're going to strike a trade agreement, it has to be a fair deal for American workers.

To make that happen, I negotiated an agreement with Republicans in the Senate. We agreed to move forward with votes on critical enforcement provisions at the same time as the vote on trade promotion authority. We had a deal.

But today, it became clear that the Republican leadership in the Senate would insist on moving forward on expanding trade without the accompanying enforcement provisions.

Without enforcement, this trade deal is a bad deal for America. Without enforcement, this trade deal would fail to protect our workers against trade cheats. Without enforcement, this trade deal would allow the shameful practices of child labor and slavery to continue unchecked.

As I told my colleagues, if we don't have a deal on enforcement, then we don't have a deal on trade.

No deal means no deal.

I remain committed to expanding trade opportunities for Oregonians and all Americans. But we're going to do it right.

I'll keep you posted.

Ron

[840high]

60. Thank you.

[Iliyah]

81. you will hate him in a few days

[ucrdem]

82. Wyden is one of the three TPA-2015 co-sponsors. That's very odd. nt

[GeorgeGist]

104. Reading is fundamental!

[Cha]

66. Mahalo for the letter from Barack, PosterChild.. He doesn't lie. He's earned my trust.. I'll tell

ya who I don't trust.. is the same ol ignorant internet cheap pot shots who have been lobbing insults at him for 7 years.

[neverforget]

70. How about the 44 Democrats in the Senate that voted against the President? Do you trust

them?

[Cha]

71. I trust the President.

[neverforget]

72. I'll take that as a "no".

[eridani]

73. And you trust the Senate Republicans more than the Senate Democrats, presumably

Why?

[neverforget]

74. Amazing that the poster couldn't answer that question with a simple yes or no.

This is what happens when you can't separate policy from the person. Obama is a good guy but good people make mistakes.

[Cha]

76. Like I said.. you all can go on and on about trusting the dems, repubs.. whomever.. they haven't

earned my trust. The President has.

[neverforget]

78. I have yet to find a politician or a person I agree with 100%.

I judge a politician on their policy stances. For instance, while I like and voted for Senator Wyden, he's wrong to support TPA but I still like him. I'm still a Democrat even if I disagree with a Democratic politicians stand on a particular issue.

[Liberalynn]

111. This is always what I have personally believed

to be the best attitude for responsible citizenship. A good friend of mine, may she rest in peace, was a Doctor in Sociology! I was going through personal struggles and crippling under self doubt.

She took me aside and said quit expecting yourself to be perfect! She said I know you're an agnostic and you know I'm an atheist, so I feel comfortable saying this to you, even if I am wrong and God does exist even he, she, it isn't perfect, so stop beating yourself up for being human!"

She was right! So do I think any one human is deserving of trust without question, no! I don't even trust myself that much!

[Cha]

75. You all can go on and on about the republicons and the dems.. I'm not taking them into

consideration.

I trust President Obama on this. He's earned my trust. end of story.

[Iliyah]

80. I agree

[eridani]

83. As have all the Republican senators who voted in favor?

You are standing with the people who vowed in 2009 that their only goal was to make Obama a one term president. Are you proud of that?

[ucrdem]

84. The point is that Obama searched for common ground and thought he'd found some

until he got knifed in the back by snakes in his own party. Wyden co-wrote the damn thing and wound up voting against his own bill. What's up with that?

[eridani]

86. Looking for common ground with today's Republicans is essentially

--deciding beforehand to fuck over the 99%.

The Senators in his own party seem to have paid more attention to their constituents. Apparently this is now a bad thing.

[ucrdem]

87. Does he have a choice?

[eridani]

89. Yes. Ignoring the Republicans and using his bully pulpit to attack the oligarchs--

--who fucked over our economy. Not getting anything passed is several orders of magnitude better than passing anything the Republicans want passed.

[ucrdem]

92. ...is not what what was elected to do. He didn't run for Columnist in Chief. nt

[eridani]

95. He was elected by people who thought he would bring changes to improve the lives

--of the 99%, and impose some accountability on banksters. The ACA did help people to some extent. The TPP does the exact opposite.

[ucrdem]

96. Based on what I've seen of it, I disagree.

On a meta level trade is preferable to an economy based on piracy and conquest. Treaties are preferable to cold wars and shooting wars. Technology is here and not leaving soon. We don't need to close our ports and at this point couldn't if we wanted to. Like it or not we're stuck with a global economy so bring on the wonky Obamacare trade regulations.

[eridani]

98. What horsesehit. Can we please stop the bullshit pretense that TPP has anything at all to do

--with trade? TPP is about nothing but establishing corporate dictatorship over the decisions of elected governments. Such unelected bodies do nothing but whore for the 1%.

ISDS isn’t a one-time, hypothetical problem – we’ve seen it in past trade agreements. Just in the past few years:

A French company sued Egypt after Egypt raised its minimum wage.
A Swedish company sued Germany because Germany wanted to phase out nuclear power for safety reasons.
A Dutch company sued the Czech Republic because the Czech Republic didn't bail out a bank that the Dutch company partially owned.
Philip Morris is using ISDS right now to try to stop countries like Australia and Uruguay from implementing new rules that are intended to cut smoking rates – because the new laws might eat into the tobacco giant’s profits.

[ucrdem]

100. Let me guess, loyal Democracy Now listener?

[eridani]

118. Whassamatter? No substantive rebuttals? n/t

[ucrdem]

119. I take that as an affirmative. As to your post,

multinationals have squads of high-priced attorneys who are going to find and/or create loopholes in any legislation including TPP if it ever passes. But without looking deeply into each one, and I'm assuming they're from DN unless you have other links, based on Amy's MO I'm going to assume they're anomalies and utterly unrepresentative of the spirit of whatever statues they happen to rest on.

[eridani]

120. Their spirit is simply that corporate profits trump any public good.

Do you get off thinking of all the dead people who can afford generic meds but not the extended patent period for Big Pharma?

[Bluenorthwest]

106. Here's what Ron Wyden said about his vote:

"If we're going to strike a trade agreement, it has to be a fair deal for American workers.

To make that happen, I negotiated an agreement with Republicans in the Senate. We agreed to move forward with votes on critical enforcement provisions at the same time as the vote on trade promotion authority. We had a deal.

But today, it became clear that the Republican leadership in the Senate would insist on moving forward on expanding trade without the accompanying enforcement provisions.

Without enforcement, this trade deal is a bad deal for America. Without enforcement, this trade deal would fail to protect our workers against trade cheats. Without enforcement, this trade deal would allow the shameful practices of child labor and slavery to continue unchecked.

As I told my colleagues, if we don't have a deal on enforcement, then we don't have a deal on trade."

[ucrdem]

107. I read it. It's ... not compelling. nt

[neverforget]

112. Under the bus with the ENITIRE Democratic Senate, except 1.

According to you, 44 Democrats are snakes. What does that make Republicans? Trustworthy allies?

It was explained to you below why Wyden voted against it, McConnell wasn't living up to his end of the deal. But you find that "not compelling". Trust Mitch more than Democrats?

[Egnever]

85. This post will look fairly silly next week when the Demo drop their opposition.

Who will be siding with whom then?

They will drop it, Reid has already signaled as much. Who will you trust then?

This is theater they hear the people screaming and so they throw a bone and in the process try to push through some labor protection. They know this is just for show. We need new agreements they know we do. Something must be done for the environment if nothing else and it can't get done without treaties.

The idea we should shoot down something before it is even done being negotiated is ludicrous. That idiocy is why we didn't allow majority rule when the country was founded.

I will bet money though that after all the dancing is done there will be fast track for this. As there should be. It may or may not pass in the end but it will come up without amendments for an up or down vote. Probably just in time for the election....

[ucrdem]

88. I hope you're right.

Thanks for that. I'm not as optimistic especially after the latest dog whistle episode but it's good to be reminded of the kayfabe factor in US politics.

[djean111]

99. Oh, I think you are quite correct. And I think this will be the end of me bothering to vote, or

else I will just cheerfully write Bernie's name on every ballot, from here on out, and stop looking at anything political on the internet. Why bother, really? Just a game show.

[Elwood P Dowd]

90. Late night Wall Street meeting finally over. TPP Cheerleaders released with orders to invade DU.

The world will end as we know it if these back stabbing Democrats don't give us our new fake free trade pony.

[Trajan]

113. I'm about to start placing these ... these... Republican policy loving DUers

Into my almost empty ignore bin ...

I cannot believe how many DUers support republican policies based on their infatuation with one specific, marginally centrist politician ....

Screw this ...

[djean111]

91. If the "trade" part is so very wonderful - why not just separate out the five chapters that actually

deal with trade - out of what, twenty-eight or twenty-nine chapters - and just go with that? Why not make the Corporate Chistmas list stand on its own?

This is personal for ALL of us. We have to live with it after the politicians leave office and go to their cushy jobs. OFA are asking hard questions about a document that they cannot read? That's so reassuring.

[ucrdem]

93. Because he has a vision of a better world perhaps?

Why is that so hard to believe?

[djean111]

97. That's great in a movie. What if his vision of a better world is not the one everybody else wants?

I sincerely doubt that means a better world for anyone but corporations. Just to remind you, corporations wrote this thing, and we are admonished that the job of a corporation is to make money. No matter how they do it. We are not to take it personally.
Well, I take it personally if a bunch of corporations got together, wrote up an agreement between themselves, and it is secret, and I am supposed to believe that it is a giant Christmas present of a better world.

Right now I feel like the bottom line here is really that Obama is president of all the people, and corporations are now people, and so he is looking out for them, knowing that corporations are strangling the US.

I don't waste my time on Obama. He is outta there, he is working on his bucket list. He will be fine, he will be more than fantastic after he leaves. I honestly don't understand why he or his supporters care about how others feel about him - he is not running again. Who cares about an approval rating, if they are not running again? The legacy thing, to me, has always been ridiculous. This is a country full of people, not a legacy opportunity. I will just withhold my vote from any politician who votes for this secret document. Only one vote, so big deal.

[ucrdem]

101. Corporations have an interest in trade but they're not writing the treaty.

It's being written by teams of government-appointed negotiators. Why don't you look into it?

https://ustr.gov/tpp

[djean111]

102. I believe the government-appointed negotiators are from corporations. Be that as it may -

All some of us want is to see this huge document that MUST be approved without changing a word. I want to see if medicine will get more expensive. I want to see if food labels denoting country of origin will be allowed. I want to see if investments, which used to be speculative, are now basically insured by the government, at the expense of citizens. Why is that unreasonable?

[ucrdem]

103. It's reasonable. I want to see it too. That's why I'm disappointed that TPA didn't pass.

We don't see it until it's finished and it's not finished (signed by negotiators) until Obama gets TPA.

[Quackers]

108. Ok, I'm on the fence.

Can someone explain to me the pros and cons of the TPP? What do American workers get out of it? What concessions do we have to make? What are the positive and negative long term effects of the TPP?

[ucrdem]

110. Here's a pro thread from back in January:

"The point of TPP is to boost US exports. That's why PBO is behind it."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026159076

good luck, it's a big topic.

[grahamhgreen]

109. All those words with no facts.