"The negotiations are not about the way most of us think of trade—you and me buying and selling things," said New Zealand psychiatrist Erik Monasterio, a co-author and lead signatory. "Instead they are protecting the massive investments profits of multinational companies that are bigger than the whole New Zealand economy. They want to make sure that countries won’t be able to pass laws or change policies, no matter how important to the local country, if that would cut profits of an overseas investor."

I think it's called "curtains" for anything resembling freedom & democracy.

I hope Obama has his veto pen at-the-ready.

The assault continues from 1000 angles. Put a fork in it.

approve for it to work. So, if lengthening patents is in the final agreement -- and there are no offsetting provisions -- I don't see Canada, China, Britain, Germany, Japan, etc., voting to raise drug prices that the government pays in most of those countries. We don't even know it will be in the final agreement, and we don't know if there will be other provisions that mitigate against increased drug prices.

I'm still convinced Obama will not endorse a final agreement that sells us down the river. I know there are plenty who thought he's gut Social Security, push the pipeline, work against net neutrality, etc., but he hasn't. Doubt he'll get fast-track either. But we all know he's a con man and corporate shill. But, even if he does try to sell us down the river, I don't see all those other countries joining in.

I believe him when he responded to Matt Yglesias the other day by saying:


"Where Americans have a legitimate reason to be concerned is that in part this rise has taken place on the backs of an international system in which China wasn't carrying its own weight or following the rules of the road and we were, and in some cases we got the short end of the stick. This is part of the debate that we're having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we've been negotiating. There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, 'Why would we want another trade deal that hasn't been good for American workers? It allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China and then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got cheaper sneakers, but we also lost all our jobs.'"

"And my argument is two-fold. Number one: precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we're trying to deal with right now is, can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it's fairer, because right now it's not fair, and if you want to improve it, that means we need a new trading regime. We can't just rely on the old one because the old one isn't working for us."

"But the second reason it's important is because the countries we're negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. And if we don't write the rules out there, China's going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged. Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged. So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged. Why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal. It doesn't mean that we're still not going to see wage differentials between us and them, but they're already selling here for the most part. And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the game in a place that we've got to be. . . . . . ."

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript

The 12 countries are: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.

You don't think Pres Obama will sell the 99% down the river. What are you basing that on? So far everything we've see that's in it is terrible. This is his show so why would he let all this bullcrap be put in if he didn't want it? And remember there were those that swore that Pres Clinton wouldn't sell us down the river, but he did.

This agreement is being put together by major corporations that do not have the best interest of the 99% in mind. There is no reason to expect it to do anything other than help the corporations. I have asked my Senators to tell me the benefits for the working person and the best they had is that the government (you and me) will retrain those put out of work do to the agreement. I don't find that reassuring at all. Training for what jobs? Jack In The Box counter workers?

No one has provided any reasons that will help the 99% in this Agreement.

Canada, Japan, Australia aren't going to vote for it with those provisions, much less European countries in the Trans-Atlantic.

Jobs darn sure aren't going to be here if we do nothing but let current trends continue.