I cannot make a case for the TPP and at this point am opposed to it. The manner in which this is being done goes against the concept of a democratic republic or democracy and I find it to be dangerous. It has been in the idea phase for long enough that a detailed outline should have been made public from our government. I felt the same way about the ACA. Fact is we supported secrecy and a lack of knowledge then, why should they think it won't happen again. Hopefully the secrecy bites them in the ass this time. Transparency is a trend that is decreasing, not increasing. I will no longer support secrecy.

our Constitution was written in secret with a clause written by Madison saying nothing could be spoken of outside of the meeting without permission. Secrecy is normal in many negotiations, and often enforced by law.

I would say that in general if it was good enough for the Founders, it's good enough for the later generations.

Secrecy is necessary to reduce the confusion from every half-wit or lobbyist banging on the doors to get their points across. The deliberations will be tough enough without pressures from outside by people with some interest in, but no responsibility for the treaty.

I also don't eat at the trough of the founders like some. "I would say that in general if it was good enough for the Founders, it's good enough for the later generations." is not an acceptable argument for me. The list of actions the founders took that I cannot support is long. This is the first time I have seen them used to support government secrecy. Impressive.

"Secrecy is necessary to reduce the confusion from every half-wit or lobbyist banging on the doors to get their points across."
You mean like the half-wits who wrote the ACA? Your thoughts on secrecy would have me to believe that BCBS is the only ones educated enough to write a healthcare bill. The lobbyist are fully in under the governments current love for secrecy.

democracy does not depend on everyone having access all the time.

That I agree with. It is different than what you originally said. Secrecy is not to be embraced as you previously alluded to. It is also not a founding principal of a democracy in any way.

No treaty can be voted on without becoming public. They are making as if this secrecy will exist forever. As long as the final product is public - that's all that matters.

eventually they will hammer out something that will be up for some sort of a vote.

Then we can argue about it, although it will probably be so technical only a few will understand it..

to your entire string.

Trade Agreement are/have always been negotiated in secret.

People seem to think that what has been leaked is the agreement; rather than, negotiating positions. We will know soon enough what the agreement contains, once it has been agreed upon ... then, it will be voted on by Congress.

I don't think your analogy applies.

Yeah, the British said sure, do what you wanna do.

and I thought you were talking about the TPP being traitorous.

takes the prize.
It reminds me of the righties saying Bush knew more than we did so don't ask about the reasons for going to war.
The people have every right to know why their government is doing something and what it is doing.
Secrecy is a tactic of totalitarianism.

Congresspeople, Democrats are OUTRAGED because they have been blocked from seeing what's in it. Good Lord, I can't believe I am reading support for this on DU!

along with merger talks. Every conversation in the cloakroom should be recorded, and Nixon's tapes were the highest example of pure democracy.

Open government only goes so far, and it's always been that way.

Your example doesn't cut it for more reasons than I have time to deal with.

After all, it was "good enough for the Founders." You should really think that through a little more. It doesn't sound right at all.

I'm not saying everyone should be there and be allowed to write every law, but we should be allowed to hear about and see what is happening before they spring it on us. Secrecy is not necessary, considering the fact that not everyone is going to be writing the law, only lawmakers.

Back room deals, aka secrecy, is how they run things where I live in a rural southern county, but the corruption is transparent. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get anything progressive done here even though it is controlled by Democrats. They are Dixiecrats. I'm talking extremely conservative and often racist Democrats who are only there to keep liberals in this area from having any voice at all. THAT is but one example of why back room deals, aka secrecy, are not a good idea. There are plenty more, but that is my number one objection.

deliberations are a means to policy.

I am aware of the the problems with no transparency and corrupt backroom deals, but I'm not saying anything good about htem. What I am saying is that there are times when things are best accomplished in confidence.

That that confidence might morph into corruption is unfortunate, but it's still the only way to get some things done.

Again I ask-- would you want jury deliberations to be made public? Union wage negotiations in the earliest stages?

are writing TPP etc.

that it can't possibly be as bad as we think it is. Apparently non-transparency breeds confidence for some. Not for me.

psychophants who blindly support everything he does.

Apparently those who do the accusing are the ones who have trouble dealing with ambivalence, seeing shades of gray and agreeing to disagree.

Noun

psychophant (plural psychophants)

1. (humorous) A sycophant, especially one with psychological problems.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/psychophant

But there are some here who are.

Most Obama supporters are not foaming at the mouth and railing about any criticism at all, even if it is constructive criticism, but there are definitely some of those here too. Constructive criticism shouldn't be a problem. Disagreeing shouldn't be a problem.

I can say Obama has done some good stuff I agree with, some stuff I wish he had done differently, but I agreed with the original goal, and some stuff I still cannot agree with no matter how hard I try.

Continuing and even expanding on some of Bush's military policies and this TPP deal are ones I cannot agree with no matter how hard I try. I don't see it ever happening. I just don't see how anyone can defend it, to be honest. I also do not understand why Obama is pushing for it so hard. Shouldn't he at least pretend his back is up against the wall because of a majority of Republicans everywhere he looks in Congress?

toadies who will agree with all his policies BUT-

I am a strong supporter of Obama but don't support the TPP from what I've read about it.

the heading in the OP is divisive and arguable so slanted as to be looking for arguments, defensive responses and trying to paint people into a corner. You hit the right tone. Thanks

Further more, perhaps the very same question, looking for the Pro's regarding TPP, could be placed at the feet of Obama critics and see why they like it so much....

what has been "leaked" is NOT the agreement; it/they are negotiating positions.

Funny, that what has been leaked and what has not ... "the TPP will be the death of American wages/jobs"; but no mention of the Administrations negotiating position that any agreement include wage protection (e.g., a universal minimum wage), and working conditions protections (e.g., banning sweat shops, child labor, forced labor, etc.) and environmental protections.

except that nobody knows what's in it, so it must be bad.

The first thing you do see about the TPP is that it excludes China and Korea but includes Japan. If you can't figure that one out, you have no business talking about it at all. If Korea enters the fold at some point, that will make it more interesting.

International trade exists and won't go away. Without it you wouldn't have Toyotas or BMWs and the home vcr would still be held up by TV studios. You also wouldn't have standards for everything from DVD's to light bulbs and gasoline grades.

There are problems with regulated trade, just as there are problems with unregulated trade, but a trade organization gives a means to deal with them other than trade wars, or shooting wars.

Every one from the EFF to PETA is terrified of some of the things they heard or (more likely) dreamed up. When it finally gets down to a real treaty, we can look at it and complain all we want. Or go for it.

Very little attempt by its detractors to explain it calmly. Because they don't really get it themselves. They just see a bashing issue.

You are right, isolation is unlikely.

how China is eclipsing the EU and the US in world trade, energy usage, and soon enough, military power.

And how China has been largely indifferent to the rest of the planet's concerns. So far, they have just been quietly doing business but there will come a point where they decide to take the next step. And then another...

With the TPP, things will be tough enough, but without it it's us alone against a Chinese juggernaut. They'll buy up Canada in a minute for its water and oil and become the primary vendor to Japan, completing Japan's transformation from research and manufacturing giant to largely importing party town.

But, hey... the TPP is bad because... because...

Its about limiting local govts rights & individual freedoms. Its about strangling out small business owner & farmers. Its about low pay & limiting unions & labor rights on a local level. Its about harming the environment in the name of profit of few. Corporate Personhood.

I can't make you read the articles I posted, or any others, but just know your lack of knowledge is showing.

That's all I got. No time for more.

When that is pretty much explicitly the point of the TPP: not to involve China.

and I already said anyone who doesn't understand how China fits (or doesn't fit) into this has no business talking about it.

I'll admit I'm unsure about Korea-- are they just playing cool for a while because of North Korea and tricky relations with China? Or are they being cold-shouldered for some reason? I think it's the former, but I haven't dug into it enough to know more.

Their main goal right now is a China-Japan-South Korea triangle, and they feel like joining TPP would put that in jeopardy.

you CorporatistBastard!

something until we know what is wrong with it. Look at life in this country after NFTA and every other trade deal. There never are worker protections or environmental protections. You only have to look at the reason for trade deals to understand the reason for secrecy and fast tract. The deals are between business interests not between the people of the countries involved. Human rights get in the way of trade deals and the deals themselves are designed to get around human rights issues.

but we are not in an information vacuum, the leaks are out.

I personally don't think it's worth the political or diplomatic hit we will take if we push it through, but the case is more or less this:

Free trade in the Americas produced the most prosperous years in the American postwar history, the late 1990s, which raised median wages and lowered unemployment until the Bush tax cuts killed the golden goose.

TPP is an attempt to expand that success to create a Pacific trading block that can function as a counterweight to China. This is, counterintuitively, a bid for African markets, and none of the TPP potential signatories can beat China to that punch alone.

More trade means more growth, and with proper social policies more growth means a better life for all of us (we've failed on that for the past 14 years or so; one of the reasons I don't think TPP is worth the effort).

Anyways, that's more or less the argument.

Last edited Tue Dec 9, 2014, 01:56 PM - Edit history (1)

If they're troubling, they're troubling, but they're not remotely novel. Those have always been how trade pacts worked.

Fast track is a two-edged sword; I normally like it for treaties but I think it's a bad idea for Obama to use it to sidestep our party rather than the other guys (though at this point it looks like he's going to be taking hits on the right and the left for it -- yet another reason to drop the damn thing and start over).

with the investor- state model.

I'm having trouble understanding how a 3-member panel, appointed by global corps with no appeal, is representative of "We The People".

And I think the political hit will be from those that are swayed by rumor.

This negotiation is looking more and more like it's coming apart at the seams. Personally I don't see anything the treaty gives us that's worth all the effort.

What can you tell me?

What specifically are you hoping to be dispelled?

Why do you and Pampango post things from “Brian Westbury Fellow of the George W. Bush Presidential Center.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4515343
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5733531

I still don't know why this bothers you so much. It's a chart of data from BLS. It was literally just the first one I found Googling. I'll make my own in MATLAB if it really matters to you?

I don't know that it's enough, but it's the best answer so far.

but based on how it is being negotiated and who is involved, people are inclined to believe the worst of the speculation.

The only thing that is certain about TPP as far as I see if that the regular Obama bashers hate it and it will be the doom of the world brought upon all our heads, once again, by the President!

I don't know near enough about it to make any kind of opinion and I will have no trouble at all Not Liking It and still be an Obama supporter as strong as ever. This all in or out, black or white, evil or good I see here is just not working for me. Things are a lot more complex than a wrestling ring of winner and loser.

Warren has many opinions contrary to what appears Obama's are on TPP, on many big issues. I don't have any problem wth that. I am not going to get a hate on her or the President because they disagree - mostly because they disagree like adults with brains and not feet stomping brats without much.

Or from Democrats in a republican congress. Clinton couldn't get that authority renewed by a republican congress even after NAFTA. Republicans were afraid he would negotiate labor and environmental provisions that fast track would prevent the republican majority from changing.

The same applies to Obama. Republicans hate him, if anything, more than they did Clinton.

Hardly anyone in congress wants Obama to have fast track authority; not most republicans; not most Democrats. Without it Obama would be a fool to submit a TPP agreement to a republican congress. The republican majority would eliminate anything pro-labor or pro-environment, then add in some pro-corporate stuff - which is why republicans would be fools to give him fast track authority. (I guess there's always the hope that republicans can be fools. 😊 )

One may like or hate Obama but he is no fool. I hope he is not spending as much time on it as DU seems to. It's not going to happen. On some level he must know that.

China seems to believe that there are tough labor and environmental provisions in it (if so they have not been leaked) and oppose it due to the effect those would have on China's competitive advantage. Some republicans have complained about such provisions but some of them would complain about anything short of legalizing slavery so it's hard to put too much weight on that.

If it had strong enforceable provisions in those areas I could make a case for it. Either they don't exist or they have not been leaked so I can't defend it.

Guess you choose to ignore it

Republican Party on Free Trade
Party Platform

Restore presidential Trade Promotion Authority

International trade is crucial for our economy. It means more American jobs, higher wages, & a better standard of living. The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies facilitated the creation of nearly ten million jobs supported by our exports. That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration's slowness in completing agreements begun by its predecessor and its failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations.

We call for the restoration of presidential Trade Promotion Authority. It will ensure up or down votes in Congress on any new trade agreements, without meddling by special interests. A Republican President will complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open rapidly developing Asian markets to US products. Beyond that, we envision a worldwide multilateral agreement among nations committed to the principles of open markets, what has been called a "Reagan Economic Zone," in which free trade will truly be fair trade.

Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

Holy Crap it's flat out denial.

Rand Paul to Obama: "Prioritize" Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

Politics, the saying goes, makes strange bedfellows. In presidential politics, the cozy compromises with the unconstitutional seem even more unsettling.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a man whose personal popularity and political fortunes have increased in direct proportion to his spreading of his libertarian-leaning ideals, has now publicly embraced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an unprecedented sovereignty surrender masquerading as a multi-national trade pact...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19439-rand-paul-to-obama-prioritize-passage-of-trans-pacific-partnership

and the thought that he would be president. I suspect republicans will support it again in August 2016 when they hope a republican president will be doing the negotiating and a republican congress can approve the result. They change their mind again if the 2016 election does not go their way.

With republicans controlling both houses of congress next year, why would they take away their own power to amend anything negotiated by Obama whom they do not like or trust?

The republican base opposes fast track by percentages approaching 85%, while Democrats and liberals support it.

or even care about it. Krugman said it's not big deal. One thing I would say at risk of being considered blindly following is that I don't have time to figure it out and if Obama thinks it good, he must have his reasons, none of which have ever been presented on DU for consideration.

On DU there is a certain blindness in the following of the TPP opponents, like you don't dare go against the tide and it must be a bad thing because everyone around seems to think it is. But I don't think anyone has really tried to understand both sides of this for real. Rather it has been glommed onto, being that it's complicated, it's easy to look and say oh well, you can't make the case for it. The usual Obama bashers are the loudest in their condemnation, and they usually can't explain it other than to rant on about NAFTA - they have no great economic understanding either.

I really don't see Obama as deliberately tanking the US economy in favor of other countries. I would also imagine those negotiating on our behalf are doing so to the best of their ability. I don't fall for the conspiracy that all of these people are doing this to protect the rich and screw the rest of us. The idea is likely to open up markets for our businesses and that has to be a two way street.

Why aren't labor and environmentalists part of this team?

Then we can look at the list and decide.

However I don't subscribe to the automatic blind assumption that the final product will wreck our economy, environment and sovereignty and make us all poor and benefit the rich and that Obama's part of that and going along with it. And that's pretty much the blind assumption on DU.

We know who is not negotiating it, because they have publicly stated they weren't invited. Other than Froman I don't know anyone who has publicly stated they were invited.

Are you for fast track and maintaining a "blind assumption"?

Every country is going to want to protect its labor and environment. We aren't going to agree to China like standards. We would make the other countries have those standards so they don't undercut ours.

People will find some aspect, though it's so secret, and claim it's going to undermine our country, but not look for other aspects that might benefit. IOW I find DU to be one sided and never presenting the other side at all. No one dares disagree with the huge bullying chorus who've adopted it as a cause. But they never really make a real case against it and never answer any arguments for it. The only reason Obama wants it is pretty much that he's in with the elite who are screwing us all over. So we should go in the streets and start the Revolution. It's insanity.

No doubt as a trade agreement, it will have its concessions some people can't stand for, and people who think their particular business will be harmed in some way. Somewhere out there are people who think it will be a good thing for their business.

I'm referring to USA negotiators who represent us. Labor and environmentalists have been quite vocal of they're non-participation in the TPP.

In the history of trade deals starting with NAFTA, which ones have created thousands of US jobs?

And no doubt their objections can be weighed with other things.

Rep Alan Grayson has said if fast track is passed each congress/person will have 88 seconds to debate the TPP trade deal. Is 88 seconds enough time to "announce their objections"

figuring the number based on the amount of time they actually spend on the chamber floor, but they can stay in session and do their jobs and debate it every day for 90 days.

90 days straight, debating on the house floor 8/hrs/day including weekends and holidays.

"can stay in session" What's the probability of that? If they are not in session, where is the debate taking place?

bill. According to Grayson's claim if 535 legislators debate the bill for 88 seconds each that works out to 13.07 hours. We know the law says 90 days. Grayson needs to defend his claim.

"amount of time they actually spend on the chamber floor" is why Grayson picked that number. Now, how much time do you say that they will stay on the chamber floor that you don't consider a stupid number?

How do we compare your numbers with a sitting congressmen who has an inside lay of the land?

"can stay in session" What number of days of the 90 days will the congress stay in session and take up debate on this precise issue? How many days, of this 90, will they debate and pass the repeal of ACA? What are your wise #'s here?

So the numbers 88 seconds and 13.07 hours are stupid #'s, please defend your stupid accusation of Grayson and share with us the smart #'s.

congress 88 seconds of debate per member." That is now what fast track authority does. It gives congress 90 days to debate and vote up or down on the bill. Grayson's claim is misleading. How much time of the 90 days congress spends debating is up to them. Certainly for something this significant one would like for them to take a couple weeks of debate at minimum (more when you include various committee meetings) but who knows.

If I were politfact I would rate Grayson's claim as "false".

will quickly call for a vote with minimal debate. 90 days is allowed but is it mandatory?

False is a much more acceptable word than stupid. Thank you.

universal wage protections, working condition protections and environmental protections?

lodge a complaint with the body, submitting their evidence of a violation of the trade agreement. The body rules on the violation and sanctions the offending country.

(Simplistic explanation; but you get the point)

selected by the global corps with no appeal.

A little more detail please. If a US company starts polluting Vietnam's rivers and Aquifers in the name of profit and Vietnam complains to the investor-state board, this board can then force a clean-up or fine, right? Would these fines be like Wall Street where they make 100 billion and get fined 10 billion, just the cost of doing business without any clean-up. This all assumes there will be specific protections in the agreement.

That is just not at all true. Does Vietnam want to protect its labor? Since when?

Do you honestly think anyone who has seen your years of posts about free trade and American jobs is in any way moved by your entirely predictable approach to yet another slap in the face trade deal?

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=532755

This isn't a challenge, it's a request. If you can't, or don't feel so inclined, no sweat. Someone else will step up, and a few already have. Thanks!

He will do exactly what he is told by General Alwaysright and CEOGazillions. Because that's who we are now.

Any other questions?

who understands actual economics.

This was the level of discourse I encountered on the last TPP thread I cared to engage in....and frankly, I wasn't particularly impressed with the critiques...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024550863

That said, if Krugman suddenly snaps out of his ambivalence, I might get worked up over it. Hell...I guess I'm supposed to be pissed, but as Recursion so deftly pointed out in this thread...why are we supposed to get suddenly pissed over ehat has been the standard for a century?

... was predicated on social spending that we just don't do anymore.

If we went back to the 1990s taxation and spending regime, I'd be for it in a heartbeat. As it is, I'm not sure the post-Bush tax structure necessarily will benefit from more growth.

On the third hand, I'm with Krugman that there's very little "there" there with the TPP; it mostly formalizes all our bilats.

to eschew the TPP? And I don't say that lightly...because I think the lack of social spending is a significant critique....one that had not been raised by the FDL crowd.

I think Krugman is so 'meh' because he understands that the TPP is an effective scare tactic for the hair-on-fire FDL wing of fundraisers...as the thread I posted demonstrated...if you don't know certain fundamentals, then the TPP is very scary, indeed.

significant showing at the polls in the off year....they didn't. And the fundraising windows on 2016 are closing, as are the organizational deadlines....all with little movement from the supposed vast FDL wing. The possible runs of Sanders or Warren has killed off the Greens (thank you, Senators!)

There's a point at which screaming is no longer 'leverage." Blog posts don't advance policy. Tweets? Ha!

Yeah...the far Left will scream.

Unless they've been grooming somebody like Schweitzer in the wings and keeping really quiet about it. (That said, I like Schweitzer.)

shortest honeymoon on record with that one though.

and don't answer the point you made.

Being emotional over "free trade" which would require some detachment to understand.

The usual DU suspects are not sincerely interested in knowing what's in it and when it comes out will really be in trouble doubling down if it looks too benign..

if I were a PR flack for a multinational.

for now.

is make wishy washy comments followed up with gossiping among each other about how stupid we are for being so unworldly. They are not our allies.

you're either asking people to defend the basic concept of a trade deal among Pacific nations - which is trivially easy, if we were to draw up our own ideal proposals - or to defend selectively leaked regressive proposals whose credibility and likelihood of being adopted aren't known, which is impossible. Your post is thus dishonest innuendo.

Bashing Obama seems to be the purpose of your post, not discussing trade. You can say the negotiations should be more transparent, but since they involve a dozen countries, that's not really something the President of the United States can just dictate.

Perhaps you could offer some precedent for when complex multilateral trade negotiations happened in full public view? That would at least be constructive, and not some idiotic ODS snipe.

the way i see it with those who claim to oppose the TPP on this site at least is that it's the usuals who just use it among many other things to bash the president.

if you oppose it, then oppose it. write letters, call, protest or anything else to show you oppose it.

but fromw hat i see on this site is those who claim to oppose it seem to have more of an issue with people that like and support the president in general.

also trade issues usually have supporters and opponents on both sides.

What can you tell us?

He is a devout corporatist