What's your position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

[rhett o rick]

The TPP of course is a trade agreement that is being negotiated in secrecy from the American public.

Corporations are being allowed to either participate or at least see the text.

Some of the text has been leaked and has union leaders and environmentalists worried.

Previous trade agreements, like NAFTA, have been devastating to the American workforce.

The Administration is trying to push this agreement thru Congress via "fast-track" which will not allow debate or public input.

How do you feel about the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

27 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	I think it will have devastating effects on the American workforce and American sovereignty.
	27 (100%)
	I think that whatever helps corporations will eventually trickle to benefit the workforce.
	0 (0%)
	I live in Seattle and...... what was the question again?
	0 (0%)
	The American workforce has had it good for a long time, now it's time for China to flourish.
	0 (0%)
	I stand behind whatever President Obama decides.
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[rhett o rick]

1. kick

[el_bryanto]

2. I am very troubled by the way it is being presented

and I don't like the secrecy. That said I would be willing to believe that it is probably more of a mixed bag than is commonly stated around here.

Bryant

[Hoyt]

18. +1. And it won't be fast tracked.

[Armstead]

44. I think the mix will be more on the turdy side

The whole idea of all encompassing agreements negotiated in secret by representatives of the Oligarchy does not auger well

[TheMathieu]

3. Indifferent.

The White House hypes its benefits and the alternative media writes articles about it that seem too histrionic to be accurate.

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

[rhett o rick]

4. Can you help me find the WH promoting the TPP? As far as the histrionics

that doesnt mean we shouldnt be concerned. NAFTA was/is disastrous.

No one that I am aware of has spelled out the pro's for the TPP. I have begged those here that disparage opposition but none will argue the advantages.

[pampango]

6. The only plausible advantages would result from high standards on labor rights and

the environment. Several years ago I saw reports that was going to be Obama's strategy for dealing with China and other low-wage, poor-environment countries, while offering trade benefits as the "carrot" to those who would play by those rules.

AFAIK, the labor chapter has not been leaked yet, but the environmental chapter - which was leaked recently - does not look good. (I have seen conflicting takes on whether the Obama administration is fighting for tough environmental standards and losing to other countries' opposition or is actually undermining these standards itself.)

If we could get trading partners to play by the same labor rights and environmental rules that would be a huge progressive win. From what we have seen so far, although nothing is final yet, that is not how it is unfolding.

[Aerows]

10. Negative.

You don't have stronger labor regulations in countries that routinely ignore them anyway. Do you not think China has labor laws? They do, they just have a culture of corruption. Does Bangladesh not have fire safety laws? Of course they do. They just get ignored.

Don't get me wrong, here in the US we have a lot of problems with safety standards and enforcement of them being ignored (W. V. water system, anyone?) but to pit American workers against workers that have no safety standards, can't enforce them and can't even complain about them is disastrous.

This particular argument is the height of putting lipstick on a pig.

[pampango]

13. That could be why China and Bangladesh are not part of the TPP.

No one trusts them to enforce anything like this and they would resist international enforcement.

And any REAL agreement worth anything would have to have enforcement provisions that would drive the "national sovereignty" folks crazy. "Those foreigners can't tell us how to treat our workers and environment just because we signed some stupid agreement."

[Aerows]

14. Oh boy

Malaysia and Vietnam. There are some bastions of worker's rights.

[bvar22]

15. Well Done.

You just destroyed the only "argument" put forth so far to support NAFTA on Steroids.

This thing is so bad that they couldn't even put together a set of believable Talking Points
to make it seem good. I guess that why they decided on the Secrecy route,
because that old scam about "we will put in protections for Labor and the Environment" has been abused so many times that nobody will believe it anymore.

[Aerows]

17. Did you read that reply?

About how it will set "national sovereignty" advocates hair on fire? Um, yeah, and it should if you are in the USA!!! I doubt seriously Japan and Australia will get the good end of the stick on this, either. Hell both countries have a higher minimum wage than the US.

[Art_from_Ark]

40. Farmers in Hokkaido (Japan) and workers in related industries

will likely get shafted, big time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4424473

[rhett o rick]

23. Did you see my post of the rhetoric Sen Cantwell sent me when I asked

where she stood?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024439686

Sen Cantwell was a member of the DLC. Nuff said.

[Aerows]

16. You just wrecked your own argument, and reinforced mine

"And any REAL agreement worth anything would have to have enforcement provisions that would drive the "national sovereignty" folks crazy. "Those foreigners can't tell us how to treat our workers and environment just because we signed some stupid agreement."

Thanks for getting it, because if this thing passes, American workers will *really* be getting it.

It's amazing that the only argument I hear in favor of the TPP just makes it seem like more of a train wreck for everyone in the USA.

[pampango]

19. If we could put together a high standards agreement like European countries have

with each other that would be good. Those countries give up some sovereignty to EU institutions that ensure that all play by the same high standards.

I think our liberals would support such an agreement as European liberals do.

Unfortunately, from what I have seen the TPP is not it.

[rhett o rick]

28. How can we "put together a high standards agreement" when only corporations are involved? nm

[Armstead]

45. Bingo

[pampango]

53. Unfortunately (because I support such an agreement), I agree. We can't. n/t

[cascadiance]

41. Do you REALLY think that those corporate types who are the only ones writing this will do this?

If this legislation were going to help the American worker and the environment moreso than other trade agreements have, don't you think they'd be making this process more public and bragging about it to help build better PR for the corporate sector than they have now? The FACT that it is as secret as anything trying to move through congress in stealth mode would indicate to me that they are actually looking to exploit the environment and workers rather than protecting them.

[pampango]

54. I think most treaties are negotiated in secret, at least on the most contentious issues.

Woodrow Wilson's "open covenants openly arrived at" never seems to have caught on with the world's diplomats. Few of his 14 points did.

AFAIK, the recent negotiations with Iran on nuclear issues was done in secret other than perhaps a few public speeches. For better or worse, it seems that countries and their negotiators are more willing to discuss and compromise on sensitive issues, if the conservations are not in public.

The real problem is the makeup of our negotiators. If they included a fair number of labor, environmental and other representatives that we felt we could trust that might be different - at least until the final product was released, when we could judge for ourselves. But that is not the case with the TPP negotiators.

[sabrina 1]

5. And whistle blowers like Wikileaks receive leaked documents and post them for the public

to see. And no, the truth isn't 'somewhere in between' it's about everything people feared, at least on the docs leaked, re the Environment and Internet freedom. Judging by what was already leaked, we can definitely say there is good reason why they've been hiding all this even from Congress. And now it's time for the public to see the rest of what they've been up to.

Thank you Wikileaks, we never needed Whistle Blowers more than we do at this particular point in our history.

[Aerows]

7. Devastating, no if's and's or but's.

Anyone that supports it needs to be voted the heck out of office.

[zappaman]

8. Well, we can't vote Obama out.

So let's impeach him!!!

[Aerows]

11. I recall that there are 535 members of Congress to threaten

I also recall that they can get voted the hell out and can override vetoes.

[rhett o rick]

21. Do you have anything to add to this discussion one way or the other? Do you support the TPP? nm

[zappaman]

22. Can you tell me what exactly the TPP says?

Don't leave anything out.

[rhett o rick]

24. You guys never commit yourselves do you? Always have a rationalization for not committing.

You dont know if you like it or not, but that doesnt stop you guys from disparaging those that do have opinions.

Loyalty is no substitute for principles.

[zappaman]

30. Nice try, dude.

I don't know what's in it, and obviously you don't either.
I suppose if I was in Congress. I would just vote on it without knowing what was in it...like you would.
Why don't you have an option that says "I don't know what it is exactly, so will wait to actually know something about it?"
You KNOW you don't like it, even thought you don't know what's in it and that doesn't stop you guys from disparaging those that want more information.
How...Republican of you.
I agree with Elizabeth Warren though. We SHOULD know what's in it.
But I guess she hasn't come out against it yet, so she has no principles.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/EWFromanLetter.pdf

[rhett o rick]

34. Again you are trying to rationalize why you wont commit on the TPP.

As far as Sen Warren -

"Elizabeth Warren Free Trade Letter Calls For Trans-Pacific Partnership Transparency"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/elizabeth-warren-free-trade-letter_n_3431118.html

The Senate confirmed Michael Froman as the new United States Trade Representative by a 93-4 vote. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Carl Levin (D-MI) joined Warren in voting no.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3722687

Warren on Trans-Pacific Partnership: "If people knew what was going on, they would stop it."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/19/warren-on-trans-pacific-partnership-if-people-knew-what-was-going-on-they-would-stop-it/

I have more but I am guessing it wont matter. You guys wont commit on issues just disparage those that do commit but dont meet your world view.

Loyalty is no substitute for principles. If you wont state your principles, then you dont have any.

[zappaman]

36. Hilarious!

Anything else you don't know about that you are committing on?

[rhett o rick]

37. Another substance-less post. But this time you went for Sid's

ridicule emoticon which always signals desperation.

Loyalty is no substitution for principles.

[zappaman]

38. Double funny!

Just for you...

[rhett o rick]

39. Do you get extra credit for every time you use the ROFL emoticon?

Take a chance, take a stand.

[Armstead]

46. THATS THE FUCKING POINT,

They dont want you to know whats in it....And if they ever get an agreement they want to ram it through Congress with no real discussion or opportunity to amend.

That's all you need to know. If it weren't a stinking deal for the majority, they'd be open and transparent.

[Whisp]

79. I'm waiting too. Just maybe it's not another NAFTA.

but if a Clinton was involved...

I'll wait and see before I gorge myself in Cat Food Commsiony rage

[Sparky 1]

9. We need to primary OUT anyone who votes for TPP. Thom Hartmann's message:

Thom Hartmann's blog on this 11/15/13:

This week, Americans got a peak behind the curtain of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and what we found is frightening. On Thursday, Wikileaks published a complete draft of the "intellectual property rights" chapter of the TPP, and it poses a serious risk to free speech and information access. The document contains proposals that would change copyright and patent laws, so-called fair use practices, and the liabilities for alleged violations.

The provisions would stifle innovation, creativity, and information sharing, all under the guise of protecting intellectual property. And, many of the proposed changes are being suggested by US negotiators. Opposition to these restrictive policies is coming from other nations, like Canada, Chile, Malaysia, and New Zealand.

When our government has previously attempted to pass similar internet restrictions, like SOPA and PIPA, the overwhelming response from websites, online users, and other Americans forced our elected leaders to back down. That response is exactly why much of the TPP is being negotiated in secret, and it explains why US trade officials are asking to "fast-track" the agreement. Negotiators know that Americans would not support this deal, so officials want to push it through without even giving Congress the ability to amend it.

Unions, civil rights advocates, environmental activists, and many other groups are demanding that the details of the TPP are made public. Before this massive trade deal is signed, Americans have the right to know what it contains, and the right to demand that our elected leaders say "No" to the TPP.

-Thom

[Aerows]

12. Precisely

They can override the President's wishes if it comes down to it. If you vote for this crock, you can join the unemployment line.

[bigwillq]

20. Whatever Obama says.

He is much, much, much, much, much smarter than I am. I know he is doing whatever is best for me and my family. I have 100 percent faith in my Obama.

I am so thankful to my Lord and savior Jesus Christ for creating this man.

Please pray for my Obama.

[rhett o rick]

26. I want whatever kool-aid you're drinking. nm

[bigwillq]

59. It's yum, yum, yummy!

[rhett o rick]

61. Yikes, you're not a member of the ROFL brigade are you? nm

[Skip Intro]

25. The scary thing is, it seems like we, the people, have no voice here.

Seems it will happen, regardless of what we think or want.

Wheels in motion and churning away.

Why does the admin want this?

What do they get out of it?

[rhett o rick]

29. You raised a great question. Why does the admin want this? I dare one of the Loyalists to answer.

[cherokeeprogressive]

47. "...it seems like we, the people, have no voice here." Wow. The irony stuns. "We the people..."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Fuck me if the subject line of your post doesn't describe about 98% of what the government "OF the people, BY, the people, and FOR the people" (to quote a famous American) is like today.

If there were ever an argument for term limits... FIFTY YEARS into the war on poverty; more Americans than ever are below the poverty line and at this time the combined seniority of the House of Representatives adds up to WELL OVER a thousand man-years (person-years if it matters to you in that context).

"Elect me so I can go to Washington and help DRAIN that sewer we call government!"

So we vote and elect that person. Little do WE know that in the evening, AFTER their inauguration, they're given a PLUSH white terry-cloth robe, soft slippers, and a Key. The Key? The Key opens The Gate in The Façade the REST OF US are shown; the one that looks like the sewer. What's behind that façade? The Hot Tub. After the FIRST time they're toasted in The Hot Tub, and CONGRATULATED for simply doing what it took to get elected, handed their favorite cocktail, and told "call me tomorrow... we're going on a "research trip" to Europe next week!" they begin their re-election campaigns.

we, the people, ARE SO FUCKED.

[1000words]

27. Oh, I'm assuming the position

Because I know I'm about to get screwed.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. #%^*. You basically beat me to it.

I was going to post something like "bent over a chair, wide stance, awaiting its mighty thrust".

But you ruined it.

[1000words]

32. Your's is far more .... um, poetic.

Still, "great minds."

[neverforget]

33. "awaiting its might thrust".....Oh gawd, I need a new keyboard

[krispos42]

35. It's as good of an idea as any other free-trade agreement

In other words, it's going to SUUUUUUUUCK

[rhett o rick]

42. I think it's very telling that at this point with 82 votes, 100% agree that the TPP

will devastate the working class of America if not the world. Where are the votes of those among us that disparage all opposition against the TPP?

[doc03]

43. I saw my job eliminated by unfair trade laws. It

sucks just like Clinton's NAFTA and Nixon's MFN with China.

[Xyzse]

48. I wish I knew more about it.

I have my misgivings. Previous trade agreements have made a mess on the work force, for most jobs.
I mean, think about it, the effective loss of jobs get magnified when it gets funneled away from an area.
It tends to go to investment and off shore, where once it is used outside of the US, profit that actually comes back gets stuck up top and does not actually trickle down.

If it does, well it is like a slow drip of some guy trying to pass a kidney stone while doing kegel. Not so much at all.

Like I said, I wish I knew more about it.

[zappaman]

49. Rick can tell you all about it.

Just ask him what's in it.

[Xyzse]

50. Ok...

Rick? Please tell.
I have my misgivings with trade agreements.

Honestly though, I don't know enough about it yet. I'll check the leaked reports if I can find a link to them.

[sabrina 1]

65. Wikileaks already told us what is in part of it. Thanks Wikileaks, our own Congress

members have been unable to access any of the 'agreements' being made on our behalf.

That is why we so need Whistle Blowers.

What Wikileaks leaked has demonstrated WHY they have been trying so hard to keep it all secret.

No wonder these Global Corporatists hate Whistle Blowers.

Looks like they are planning great things for the Environment and for the Internet.

Hopefully more Whistle Blowers will come forward so we can get a peek at what else they are keeping so secret.

[Nye Bevan]

51. Paul Krugman thinks it's not a big deal at all. But Nobel schnobel, what does he know.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2013/12/12/tpp/

If DUers think that it will be devastating, and he doesn't, then obviously they are correct and he is wrong. The collective wisdom and intelligence in DU economic threads certainly trumps a lone economist, even if he did win the Nobel prize. I'm sure Cali & co. would eat him for lunch in a debate on this issue.

[Hoyt]

56. Yeah, the "Paul Krugman knows nothing on TPP" is amazing as is

NAFTA is the source of all our problems.

[rhett o rick]

63. Do you always agree with Mr. Krugman or just when it suits you?

So are you on the record as approving the TPP? How about NAFTA?

[Nye Bevan]

64. I remember watching the NAFTA debate between Al Gore and Ross Perot.

Gore convinced me.

[fadedrose]

52. Even I loved the TPP, which I don't, I am against it

Trade agreements belong in the House, not the state department.

I hope the House puts every effort into fighting to keep their authority.

President's a good man, but this isn't his gig, not yet.

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. 106-0-0-0-0

So just who do these people work for? Do you think your pathetic life ever enters their thoughts for an instant?

[B Calm]

57. I see the DU globalists haven't voted yet.

[pampango]

58. Hey, you can be a 'globalist' and not support the TPP.

I prefer 'internationalist' (which I think FDR definitely was), but I understand that 'globalist' has more 'zing' to it.

If the TPP was a European-style, high-standards agreement on issues like labor rights and the environment, I would support it ('globalist' slings and arrows notwithstanding). But it is not.

Globalization has had winners and losers (as did 'pre-globalization' and as would 'post-globalization', if it happens):

The top 1% has seen its real income rise by more than 60% over those two decades. The largest increases however were registered around the median: 80% real increase at the median itself and some 70% around it. It is there, between the 50th and 60th percentile of the global income distribution that we find some 200 million Chinese, 90 million Indians, and about 30 million people each from Indonesia, Brazil and Egypt. These two groups—the global top 1% and the workers of the emerging market economies— are indeed the main winners of globalization...

But the biggest loser (other than the very poorest 5%), or at least the “non-winner,” of globalization were those between the 75th and 90th percentile of the global income distribution whose real income gains were essentially nil. These people, who may be called a global upper-middle class, include many from former Communist countries and Latin America, as well as those citizens of rich countries whose incomes stagnated.

http://gulzar05.blogspot.com/2013/11/measuring-global-inequality.html

While it is encouraging to see much progress in the incomes of previously very poor people (from the poorest 10% up to the poorest 70% or so), the growth of incomes of the 1% needs to be addressed and redistributed to the poorest 5% and the middle class in the developed world.

[rhett o rick]

62. If they were "globalists" they would speak up. But it doesnt look like DU has any globalists.

Those they you refer to are those that wont commit. They are loyalists with no thoughts of their own. They are against those that are opposed but they wont commit to supporting globalization.

[pampango]

67. I just spoke up in the post right above yours.

But it doesn't look like DU has any globalists.

Not sure how you define "globalist". I believe in international negotiated solutions to global problems rather than unilateral actions by any one country. I believe there is no "invisible hand" that causes each country pursuing its own self-interest to somehow result in the greatest common good.

Those that you refer to are those that won't commit. They are loyalists with no thoughts of their own. They are against those that are opposed but they wont commit to supporting globalization.

As I posted above, I won't commit to supporting an agreement that I do not believe is an effective negotiated international solution.

A globalist does not support every international agreement any more than an "anti-globalist" opposes every international agreement (although the "anti-globalists" on the far-right could prove me wrong on that).

I suspect that if you and I agree on the need to raise taxes on the rich, fund an effective safety net, empower unions and a host of other policies, you would not say "that I am just a loyalist with no thought of my own".

I support globalization. 75-80% of the world's people are substantially better off than they were 20 years ago. The bottom 5% and those in the 75th to 90th percentile of income (the middle class in the West) are not better off. And the top 5% (especially top 1%) have seen tremendous gains.

Rather than reversing the gains of the 75-80%, I submit it is preferable to go after the top 5% (particularly the top 1%) through higher taxes and other progressive policies and build a stronger Western middle class that way. That is what progressive countries already do. Perhaps we should do the same.

[Armstead]

71. I disagree with you, but I respect that you are actually engaged in the issue

What was being referred to, i think, were all the posters who snark out those who criticize things like TPP, but don't go any further in explaining why they support those policies (or perhaps don't even think about them.)

You're not in that category, IMO

[pampango]

73. Thanks for the response. n/t

[rhett o rick]

74. I guess I didnt recognize you as "a globalist" your exception proves the rule.

By loyalist I refer to those among us that follow the current admin blindly and wont voice an opinion but disparage those that dare to disagree with the President. I understand that in theory globalization can solve a lot of problems on a global scale. But it appears to me that globalization is a code word for corporatization.

I asked my two Democratic Senators if they supported the TPP. Trying to decipher the rhetoric it looks like they both think it will help Washington the State, industries but nothing said about the help for workers other than for those that lose their jobs, the taxpayer will retrain them.

[pampango]

75. I think you're right. On the left "globalization" has become a code word for corporatization.

On the right - at least the far-right wacko part of it - they equate it with socialism and some liberal plot to form a One World Government.

And thanks for the response.

[PowerToThePeople]

60. HAHAHA!!

I HAD to do it =)

[msanthrope]

66. Don't have a position yet, because it hasn't been released. Krugman isn't that

worried about it, and I tend to trust him on economic issues.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/krugman/2013/12/12/tpp/

We'll see.

[Armstead]

69. I trust Krugman on most economic issues -- but not trade

In the 90's he was a full-bore supporter of NAFTA and the other previous agreements that have hollowed out out economy.

He's become a great advocate on the domestic economy, but IMO he's still off-base on the role that "free trade" has had in our demise.

[Cleita]

68. According to what I just heard today on the radio, it will give companies the right to

pay workers wages competitive to those of workers in other countries of the world who are part of the agreement. In other words if China is paying its workers $1.25 a day, your employer can pay you the same. I don't know if this is true, but I think it's what I heard and if this is the truth of it, then woe to the 99%.

[Armstead]

70. Maybe not exactly match. but that's the general direction these things go --- Down

[whatchamacallit]

72. I'm going to insist it'll never happen, and if it does, find a way to defend it

Sincerely,

A. Boglodyte

[Purveyor]

76. Oil will be transported one way or the other. Rail, truck or pipeline. I support the lessor of the

evils and that is the...gasp...pipeline.

[rhett o rick]

77. This thread is about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Were you addressing the XL-Pipeline issue? nm

[Purveyor]

78. Oh my? I hate it when that happens... eom