what do opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership think we should do to compete effectively in the global marketplace?

Is 'defeat the TPP' and then 'do nothing' their only argument?

give

and was defeated?

I remember the arguments made by our Dem Reps then, why they voted against it, nothing has changed to make this any more palatable in a Democracy.

First, is there anything in this agreement that fixes the huge Trade Deficit we have since NAFTA?

It's hard to make suggestions when we are in the dark and the President refuses to allow Congress to do their job and bring it to the floor for open discussion so the people know what is in it.

Since we know nothing other than the leaks, based on those leaks, I would say to begin with, GET RID OF THAT PART of it NOW. We should never be giving Foreign Corporations the right to sue The American people because of our laws.

Can you think of anything MORE LUDICROUS than that?? What the intention there is that it will become so expensive for us, and other countries, they will eventually weaken our laws just to save money.

You can be sure there will law suits, 6,000 Corporations will have access to our country to do business, and this will be a weapon they will use so they can pollute and destroy our environment.

So, remove that dangerous piece of legislation from the bill.

Second, we a little about Net Neutrality, that too must go. It threatens our internet freedom.

Now show us the rest of it so we CAN make suggestions.

Otherwise your question is like asking me what I think of the moon, I don't know, I have never seen it.

Isn't that part of what the President was saying this fixes? Let's say it's defeated. Isn't there a strong possibility that our trade deficit would get a lot worse? I agree with you regarding the foreign corporation stuff, from what I've read. Also would like to see removed the intellectual property stuff that only tends to benefit big corporations.

It just doesn't seem like the end of democracy or the end of the world to me, one way or the other. Every trade agreement in history is negotiated in secret. I'm not sure why that's some big news to anyone. Some trade agreement have benefitted all countries involved. NAFTA didn't and President Obama knows that and says he has corrected that. I'd rather have President Obama and his Administration negotiate a trade deal for the US than have the George W. Bush Administration or in the future the Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or whoever Administration negotiate it. Why all this unbelievable vehemence, coming from its opponents? Do you think it's possible that some people are trying to use this as a 'wedge issue' to split democrats from each other. Like say Karl Rove type folks? I don't know. Just wondering.

I appreciate your comments. I don't feel I'm learning much though, about what we should do to improve the trade deficit in the absence of passage of the TPP or any other trade deals. I'll try and learn some more.

As you say, we haven't yet seen it. I do like the moon though, from what I've seen!

should have been involved in that secret process. To deny them any input, is more than an insult to our system of Government, it is undemocratic. They asked for years to be allowed to see the drafts, which they have a right to do, and were denied.

So now that it HAS been secretly drafted, it is time to put it before Congress with the ability for them to take out anything that is damaging to this country. And forthe American people to know what is being planned for their future.

But they can't. That part that allows 6,000 Corporations to sue us, and other countries with good Environmental laws, and not even in a regular court, in a Corporate Tribunal where Corporate Lawyers will determine the outcome. Does anyone think that Corporate Judges will rule in favor of the people of ANY country? THAT cannot be changed.

If you want Obama to get this authority from Fast Tracking this bill, fine, but it is a six year term so whoever is the next president, will have all that power he is fighting for. I don't like the odds for the people here.

As for how to deal with the trade deficit, the US needs to be producing more. To make that happen, outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has to be addressed. Jobs have to be returned to US Workers.

We are buying, but not making much of anything to sell.

So, is outsourcing, cheap labor, addressed? We don't know.

Is export and import addressed? We don't know.

Does Congress know? We don't know that either. They know some things and what they know they have told us, 'if the American knew what is in this, they would oppose it'. That doesn't sound too good.

This is not a Democratic process.

Democracies don't fall over night, it happens incrementally.

Ours began to fall a while ago, the Drug War eg, took away many of our rights.

That began the incarceration of millions of Americans, the Privatization of the Prison System, cheap labor from those prisons, taking away more jobs as Corps make use of prison labor.

It hurtled forward after 9/11 when more of our rights were destroyed.

And this bill, will move it forward in a very big way.

And then, one day, people will wake up and wonder how we got there.

Same as it always happens, until it's too late, step by step, democracies die.

Which is why I am for not waiting for the next step.

I am for stopping each step before they take the next one.

We are already apathetic about the loss of our rights.

People are adjustable, they get used to living in fear, or living in a country where nearly everyone knows someone now who has spent time in jail.

There isn't much outrage over the militarization of our police, in fact there is support for it.

So don't expect it to come with a bang, it doesn't.

Put simply a trade deal can't set a "global standard" for us all to have the same standard of living. It's just not going to happen. Therefore workers in higher standard of living that are forced to work at the same low wages that the "bottom" countries have in order to have jobs are going to get screwed by their definition of a "level playing field".

Companies will be able to go tribunals to sue governments for "unfair legislation" that penalizes their profits. Hmm, if Obama is looking out for us, do we get to have our own tribunals, with people on those tribunals that trade unions and we as workers get to select get to sue governments for lost wages given this agreements asking us to unfairly compete in the marketplace where we're losing money from what we were earlier able to earn without these so-called "free trade" deals in place and the outsourcing rush that accompanied them? If not Obama, WHY THE HELL NOT, if you are truly working for us and not the elites with this bill, and are not trying to sell us a huge pile of sh*t?

Obama has not denied it, think about the laws we the people could be sued over.

Let's say we get a $15.00 an hr minimum wage eg.

The Fast Tracking of TPP passes. Congress, unable to remove any bad stuff, or add any good stuff, votes 'yes'.

6,000 Global Corporations are now capable of suing the US in a Corporate Tribunal (anyone have a clue how that works?) run by Corporate Lawyers, where no doubt, the interests of the American people will be a priority!! , because you never know, some people might actually believe that!

So they come here and establish some businesses. From poorer countries where they are accustomed to paying Workers .60c per hr.

Now they have to either bring their own workers (is THAT covered in the TPP?) who cannot live on such wages in this country, so how WOULD they live here, slave labor, camps like they have in Dubai eg?

Or, they may have been told they can take advantage of our Private Prison System where almost FREE labor is available to Corporations (keep those prisons full!)

Or, they can sue the American people and we the workers, will have to pay them because of our Minimum Wage.

I wonder if the President would address some of these questions?


Because we can only go by what we know. I am going by what we know, and am imagining a nightmare filled with lawsuits, costing the American untold amounts of tax dollars in order to try to protect our hard fought for laws.

And in the end, overwhelmed by the cost, weakening those laws. I can hear it now from Congressional Members : 'Look, we have to be pragmatic. We can't keep paying out this amount of money in settlements, We have to do SOMETHIG. Since we belong to the Reality Based Community, the truth is that the minimum wage we have now hasto go! Sorry morons, but thanks for the support in getting this passed, we love you!'

If we are wrong, then Mr President show us where we are wrong or else, YOU are the one who is wrong.

I'm not sure how we can address or resolve all these challenges before an up or down vote on TPP. Or that they are all relevant to it's passage or non-passage. But if I were in Congress I'd be inclined to pick one thing, like say increasing the federal minimum wage, and say to my colleagues 'I won't consider voting on the TPP until the federal minimum wage in increased.' It seems to me that the TPP has brought out a lot of other progressive issues, and that's a good thing. We need far more pro-union people in Congress, far more people in Congress who look out for average workers both non-union and union, regardless of who is President!

if it is Fast Tracked, even if we were to get that minimum wage before that, will fall under what Global Corporations can sue us for.

Since the TPP cannot be changed now, and thanks to the leaks, we know that 6,000 Global Corporations can sue the American people over laws that THEY will claim can hurt their profit margins, and those claims will be controlled in Corporate Tribunals with Corporate Lawyers and Judges making the decisions, WAGES are likely to be the first thing they will sue over.

Imagine eg, a Corporation from a poor country where wages are .60c or less an hr. That's what they are used to paying. Then they come here to the US and suddenly they have to pay $15.00 an hr. to American workers. They could bring their own workers I suppose, but how could people live on that HERE? I can see all kinds of ramifications from this, slave labor eg.

Or are we offering them the use of our Private Prison population as a source of cheap labor?

The minimum wage is a perfect reason under the TPP to sue the American for preventing them from making a profit.

And that is a few of the ramifications I can think of.

Have you been following the fight the Long Shoremen have been in with Foreign Corps over the past few years? How they bring in thugs to beat up American Labor Protestors, eg. And when they walk off the job to protest wage cuts, circumvention of our laws, by these Corporations, they bring in busloads of cheap labor.

We just cannot let this pass. The Long Shoremen's problems could become our way of life across the country.

Obama has not denied that this is in this Agreement, or that it has been changed, so if this was the ONLY bad thing in it, Fast Tracking is out of the question imo.

Germany doesn't seem to have much problem 'competing effectively'. They just don't overpay their executives and shareholders as much.

We need to strengthen unions here at home.

I've been opposed to the TPP. But I think President Obama makes a strong case that we can't just sit around and do nothing to promote trade with other countries.

the corporations.

nt

Why are you saying nail in the coffin? I mean, what's the basis for your argument?

'the President said so'? Even if we were to take him at his word, he has less than two years before someone else has the power he is asking for to negotiate Trade deals on behalf of the American people.

So what is in the deal that addresses some of the issues I mentioned above, the Trade Deficit, eg, that should cause people to support this agreement?

level the playing field through on trade deal. I'm most interested in what can be done toward improving things with or without this particular trade deal. I did read about the issues you addressed above. So I'm wondering, if you or anyone can provide some thoughts on how to address some of those issues without this particular trade deal. I'm opposed to the TPP. And I still think we should address some of those issues you and its critics have mentioned.

that there is no trade deal and to start from there, or to ignore it even if it passes?

If it passes, there is nothing we can do other than accept whatever is in it, because thousands of Global Corporations will be here in this country suing us over our laws, in Corporate Tribunals, and we will be spending most of our time to defend the laws we already have.

But if you mean 'as if it never happened', then I would suggest that Congress prepare a list of what issues are the most important to consider, when entering into any Trade deals.

1) Labor, increase production in the US, bring back manufacturing

2) Wages, do not even consider forcing the American worker to compete with workers where the wages are .60c an hour or less.

3) No Corporation, foreign or domestic, will have the right to sue this country or any other, because of its laws (glad we got a peek at this agreement otherwise who would even have imagined such a thing?) Our laws are not strong enough as it is.

Additionally make sure Corporations understand they will be sued, fined, kicked out of the country and even jailed IF they violate any of our laws.

4) Use Trade Agreements to raise standards in poorer countries, encourage them to implement environmental laws and internet freedom laws etc.

5) Close the gap created by NAFTA regarding our Trade Deficit.

6) The murder of labor Union Protesters in any country will result in prosecutions and convictions of those responsible. See Colombia eg, where we were partners with the murdering administration there. THAT should be the last time we partner or trade with such a regime.

That is an outline of a few goals I can think of off the top of my head.

Once we have our goals set, all of which should be aimed at protecting this country's laws, labor, advantages we get from Fair Trade etc, then we can start to think about how to implement fair trading policies with other nations.

I can't imagine entering into ANY agreement where the best interests of the country making deals are not clearly laid out and used as a standard for every 'offer' made.

From what we've learned so far, it appears our Trade Agreements are dictated by Corporations and their needs. Maybe that should also be added to the list. Corporations do not write, determine or otherwise influence our laws. Corporations will be treated fairly, but they will not make laws for this or any other country entering into the agreement.

Strong labor unions. That's how you keep industries from leaving a country, and keep wages livable. That's how you 'level the playing field'.

Before unions, there were rich and poor with a tiny sliver of 'middle class'. With the advent of unions, came a vast middle class.

Every country with a large/strong middle class has strong labor unions, no exceptions. Once upon a time this country had strong labor unions, and a very stable economy. In the early 80s, the GOP at the behest of corporations started chipping away at labor unions. The middle class started shrinking. At the rate the Republicans AND Democrats are now attacking labor, we will have almost no middle class within 20 years. Mark my words.

Trade deals like this one do the opposite of what is needed. Everything is about campaign donations now. It isn't rocket science.

You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that to even start this debate.

It's like some people think we were born yesterday or that this is our first round-up.

zz

Classic.

protects US sovereignty?

The tpa is about a lot more than mandating a straight up or down vote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026547878

I'm a bit tired though. It's late here and the zz post above made me even more sleepy. If you want to share anything though please help me learn more. I find it an interesting discussion. I don't understand why many here seem so paranoid & angry lately. Maybe they always have and I just missed a lot of it in the past, lol.

I have a controlling interest in the Brooklyn Bridge to sell anyone who believes that line.

or also including all trade deals prior to NAFTA?

...if he's correct, then he won't be remembered, as Moore claimed, as the "first black President." He'll be remembered as laying the foundation for all trade agreements that the US embarks upon.

I don't think he's correct regarding how IP and environmental regulations are at odds with one another. The environment will take a backseat to intellectual property. And that's ultimately why I am against it.

But I don't doubt for a second that he doesn't believe what he's saying. My only consolation is that he bothered to mention China, which is why ultimately TPP is geopolitical. He thinks a geopolitical hack will save jobs. I simply disagree with him, fundamentally.

I'm currently opposed to it too. I'm not please about the ip stuff either. Seems to me a way for Disney and other big corporations to further go after every average person. I don't like that one bit. From what I can tell it's more a corporate ip thing than anything else. Wouldn't affect jobs in a huge way, one way or the other. But I do think the President has more to say about it and I will listen and look forward to reading different views on it once it's all released. Even if I still oppose it I don't think it takes away from all the progressive gains we've made under this Administration.

We already have DMCA for copyright and such. But what it will do is lock in countries with regards to renewable energy technology. They will be bound by the US patent system. So if some guy there has already invented some new renewable energy technology, but it was after it was patented in the US, then the country that signs on differs to the US and the guy who invented something there gets the shaft. It changes nothing with regards to US IP.

So what will ultimately happen with regards to renewable technology is that if those countries want to meet emissions requirements they will be forced to pay into the US patent system. There's no trigger for GDP or cost or anything like that. So they'll be paying the "full rate." So any country that signs on will be set back by the intellectual property provisions.

This is, unlike what many are arguing, the US expanding its laws on other countries that don't have such a robust legal and judicial system.

In the end what I foresee is that companies will sell their patents to these countries to make these countries build the technology out while they hire their own workers. The idea behind it is that our workers will build the technology out, but it's not going to work out that way. And people making wind power generators in the US will be put out of a job.

lawyers for corporations with heavy IP (Silicon Valley, film studios, etc.) had a hand in drafting the legislation. What are we offering these other countries in return for their signing on? I'm assuming, money first and foremost, for their subsidiaries and stand-along corporations overseas. And for them, more jobs. Is there any possibility it will strengthen the middle class here, as the President is arguing? He seems to be saying that it could result in a windfall that will get us out of stagnation, toward a roaring GDP that will help increase wages of all workers here, if I'm hearing him correctly. I don't believe the arguments that say it's just some boondoggle that is giving away all of our rights and possible economic growth for the future.

They make more money on IP environmental tech utilizing foreign labor. So for them, building the technology out there, then importing it here is more profitable. Low wage workers abroad vs higher wage workers here.

His argument only works if there's a living wage for workers here, which will eventually happen, but I don't think TPP brings it about. It's a stop-gap. We know China is using cheap labor and expanding rapidly, so, rather than depend on China we work with other Asian states to get the cheap labor and resource development.

In the short term it helps US corporations because they get to use cheap labor. In the long run, of course, it doesn't at all.

And I hope I'm wrong. It would be amazing if Obama was correct on this issue. Absolutely ground breaking.

development of alternative energy in US hands. As soon as I thought about it I remember how big oil bought the idea of the electric car years ago in order to keep them from developing the system.

Wouldn't more minds on the job make it more likely that alternatives would increase worldwide?

I still know a lot of people that were doing better than me, before 2008 destroyed their investments. They are still struggling to make loan payments to save their LIVES. A lot of us have 3 jobs or contracts. Really, we should change the dialog to trade deals that help put the unemployed back to work.

I will cry if someone asks me why.

Like, all democrats say to the President and the rest of Congress 'We won't even consider voting on the TPP unless and until we have a solid proposal passed that puts American workers who are unemployed and seeking work first. After that is passed, then we'll consider the TPP.' Another thing I'd like them to say is 'Not until the minimum wage here in the US is raised.'

to be discarded. When billionaires say raise their taxes, raise their fucking taxes! Why do you even care about cutting foodstamps and education, when we STILL waste 2 billion a day in Afghanistan?

Of course Obama would just agree with all that since those questions need to be addressed to Congress. All this garbage about the job creators...when we ask year after year, why none? Why make the POTUS do all the work?

Congress needs to get right in the head, the institution has stumbled a great ways.

I wonder if they even remember Afghanistan is ultimatly there job...

Too busy reading Green Eggs and Ham etc..

It feels overwhelming at times. I can see why the POTUS is staying completely unpredictable. However, I believe he wants a strong job market, even over a robust economy.

If he can hammer out a deal with the TPP, then we still need to understand the ramifications that China will be able to skirt around very stringent laws we will be putting on nations that are partners.

I have yet to see the huge amount of good NAFTA did for the American worker or workers down South of us.

Do we want to give the WTO a huge amount of power that is useless against China, the worlds largest economy?

Remember this is all Free Market talk...China LOVES the free market! It is very anti-democratic.

And leave the WTO alone to protect us from the other TPP countries! (Those scary poor countries wouldn't think of trading with us with the WTO on our side.)

NAFTA and the WTO are better than any trade deal you could possible put together! Either let congress do the negotiating - even Boehner and McConnell could do a better job than you - or just drop this whole TPP idea and let NAFTA and the WTO go about their business.

the deficit. If those standards are not there, not high enough or unenforceable then TPP will do nothing for our trade deficit. Of course, dumping TPP and leaving the WTO in charge of our trade with Vietnam and Malaysia is not likely to help our trade deficit either.

You just went from one extreme to another. Without stating why that would be necessary.

When you have a problem, which we do, nearly a million jobs lost since NAFTA, a huge trade deficit, which is what happens when a country is no longer producing anything to sell, Congress needs to make this problem a huge issue because they are our Representatives in Government.

You don't throw up your hands and say 'we can either just vote blindly for something negotiated by the Executive Branch or do nothing.

That isn't what we hire politicians to do.

I have a better suggestion, now that this deal has been done, in secret, put before Congress, not to vote up or down without having any ability to change things that are good for Corporations (who wrote the bill, so I'm not hopeful they wrote it with the people's interests in mind) but bad for the people.

Iow, do it the Democratic way. Let Congress add amendments, take out stuff that is harmful to the American people etc.

IS there a reason why letting Congress represent those who hired them, has become so controversial?

I would not go so far as to say "just vote blindly for something negotiated by the Executive Branch or do nothing" are good ideas. If every single word of the TPP is not released before any vote, it should be defeated. If it is all released, then we would not be 'voting blindly for something negotiated by the Executive Branch'. It may still deserve to be defeated if it is not a high-standards, high-enforcement agreement.

I would go so far as to say that I trust Obama to negotiate a good agreement more than I trust Boehner and McConnell to "change things that are good for Corporations" or "add amendments, take out stuff that is harmful to the American people" and make any Obama-negotiated agreement better for the American people.

I agree that to "do nothing" is a dismal alternative.


I suspect that, for many liberals, trusting the Boehner-McConnell congress to solve our problems is a rather rare occurrence. The majority of our base seems to want to keep the republican congress as far from influencing the content of this agreement as possible and sees TPA as a way to do this. And the prospect of those two republicans having the power to add and delete anything they want in the TPP is a scarier thought yet. It is unusual to see your level of bipartisanship here on DU.

DU a hostile place for people to actually discuss important issues.

So speak to for MYSELF, I have no 'faith' in politicians, I do have faith in the system. Considering that a majority of Americans do not want this to pass, both Republicans and Democrats have to respond to those who elect them.

That is what happened when Bush tried to get this passed. At that time, I was certain he would succeed, but I was wrong.

Most Republicans did support Bush but enough of them did not and joined Democrats in stopping it. That is the system working.
t
The scenario is more or less the same this time. Most Republicans support Obama on this, while most Democrats do not.

This isn't a question of 'trust', it is a question of whether or not we have a functioning democracy.

IF it passes, Congress cannot do anything other than vote 'yes' or 'no'.

If it gets to that point, the danger of it passing is far greater than stopping it NOW.

Once they are asked to vote on the actual bill, many members will be pressured like never before to prove they are 'not isolationists', threatened with not being supported in their next elections, etc.

There will be no effort to 'persuade' them, it will be 'are you with us or against us'.

After which we are stuck with whatever is in it and the power that Obama will have won, will go to the next president, who could, possibly be Paul Ryan or Cruz.

Now is the time to stop it. After which it will take a while to raise it again, anyone running for President won't dare to support this abomination.

Bush, eg, raised it AFTER he no longer had to fear repercussion in an election.

Obama waited until HE had no fear of repercussions.

But members of Congress DO have to fear the retaliation of the voters and they know there is strong opposition across the political spectrum.

THIS is our only chance to stop it. And that is exactly why there is so much activism around it right now.

However the Corporate lobbyists are all over DC right now.

It is a test of the power of the people V the corporations who strongly support it.

We'll see who wins. I'm rooting for the people.

You are referring to attitudes of the politicians whom you have "no faith in" not to the attitudes of Democrats and republicans.

That is true according to the polls. As you know the Democratic base is the only group who does want it to pass.


I agree that it is probably easier to kill the TPP now by killing fast track. If it fails Obama would be an idiot to submit any TPP agreement to a Boehner-McConnell congress. Obama may be many things but few, even his enemies, think he is an idiot. He would not turn a republican congress loose to recreate the TPP in its own image.


Agreed for the most part. Polls do show that politicians, particularly republicans, run the risk of a voter backlash is they vote in favor of fast track. republicans are much, much more likely to suffer this fate at the hands of their base than Democrats are.

And of course "strong opposition across the political spectrum" is not technically correct since Democrats support the TPP and fast track. There is very, very strong opposition (close to 90%) from republicans and significant opposition from independents that does make your statement "a majority of Americans do not want this to pass" correct.

non-unionized labor opposes it, every Liberal organization I know of, I'm getting constant requests to call Congress from all of them, oppose it.

In fact the opposition v support for it this time, is very close to the way it was last time.

The ONLY democrats I know who support it, are the DLC/Third Way wing of the party.

Nearly all of our elected Democrats oppose it also.

So I am not seeing the support from Democrats.

But we agree, now is the time to stop it.

It won't be brought up again most likely, IF it is stopped, until the next President is safe from repercussions in an election.

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

You're not fooling anyone.

your informed analysis around here for some time. It's what makes a discussion board such as this a great place. Nice to see you posting more regularly again.

Slow on the uptake, much?

It's something I've learned over the years at DU. It's just not my thing, but if it is yours that's fine. I do try to sometimes say something positive about posts and posters that I find informative.

If my opinions are not clear from my posts, I doubt that responding to your one-liners will change that. And I could not hope to change the opinion of the Great Revealer of True Motives and Beliefs even if I wanted to. And I do not want to do that anyway. DU can be a scary place with no one to tell you whom you can trust and whom you can't. Too many DU'ers rely on you to do that service for them. I would not want to mess with that trust.

at dissembling.

the American Way. Job well done.

These things are negotiated by and for the owners, whose interests are at near total opposition with the interests of workers. That's true of this deal more than any other before it. It is most certainly not about serving American workers.

But we all know how center-right Dems see this. It's trickle down economics. Anything that services 'job creators' serves peons.

..

For your calm rational approach. I am not a fan of TPP, however it will happen and I prefer this President's voice in the negotiation. Until I can see what is in the final draft that is about all I can say on the subject.

I'll probably still be opposed to it after it's presented in full. I think that right now is the only ideal time for democrats to demand specific policies be enacted (concrete ones like raising the minimum wage and something specific to prevent offshoring of jobs) before the vote reaches Congress.

I feel I understand a little better what the President & its supporters are trying to accomplish (increase revenue, keep track of corporations to tax them even when they are overseas, improve working conditions and environment standards worldwide). I enjoy the discussion.

I'm learning more about the different pressures at play, pressures that have come about from corporations having shipped so many manufacturing and other jobs overseas and still wanting to move more jobs overseas. I want to see a lot more about what the President and its supporters are claiming are ways in which the US middle class (union and non-union) will benefit from its passage.

. . . President Obama said it is a good trade plan.
President Obama hasn't lied to us about anything.
So, I trust the President's judgment on this trade plan.

Trade deals put corporations first.