something that our president is for. I thought progressives embraced the world and all its people. I don't know enough about this to make a judgment.

if I take the time.

I think that Bernie may have done a tad of disservice here, but I'm sure he has his reasons to be against the TPP.

The Rand Corporation gave a session that I attended about maneuvers in the South China Sea. The Chinese are a problem. I think that it's not easy to discuss dealing with the Chinese openly with the American public, too delicate.

In general it's painful for people to absorb how interdependent we are globally. Some gain and some lose and working people are caught in the middle right now.

It's about international corporations. That's why people who DO know enough about it do oppose it.

That they can lower wages? Are there no protections against that in TPP?

and environmental concerns. That it is all enforceable, and it will mean better interconnections for us all. Is he lying? What part of TPP is it that leads you to believe it's all for corporations?

First of all, the only organizations that are pushing this are the corporations. Labor and environment both object to this agreement.

Second, the things that Obama claims will be "enforceable" are in other trade agreements and we rarely, if ever, enforce them. There is no reason to believe that future administrations will behave any differently under this agreement.

Finally, the last two years were discussion in which labor and environment were excluded, even from reading the documents, and business was continuously included right up until the last minute.

But really, we should be concerned about excluding China from these agreements. We don't really want to isolate them, we want to use more carrot than stick here. We want them to be INCLUDED in their regional economic activities.

Thanks. I'm guessing Hillary will thread the needle on this, but she better approach labor and environment and somehow incorporate China.

I wonder why Obama didn't strengthen those aspects and why China is not included.

The TOS doesn't allow us to discuss his motivations.

They asked an unanswerable question and I merely stated that it was so. How is that a "stink bomb"?

which will do more for environment than any trade agreement ever could. Trade agreements alone aren't going to solve all the world's problems.

I agree that the TPP won't solve all the world's problems. The struggle is to identify what "problems" it will solve, other than ensuring the profit margins of multinational corporations. There is little evidence that it will protect ANY workers in countries that don't actually want to, since the US has shown itself horribly unwilling to enforce labor provisions of previous and existing trade treaties. What makes us believe that future administrations will be any different? Similarly with environmental restrictions. One has to either believe that the country in question will already care, or that we will endeavor to enforce them, which we are loathe to do and would rather include it as an issue in larger diplomatic discussions. We can do that WITHOUT the treaty.

Again, no real case has been made beyond empowering multinationals to make more profits.

gets a job at a foreign plant -- you are opposed?

Do you consider poor foreign workers who have not shared in the wealth the USA has taken from the world, as competition for your job? Do your work for a company? Do you think those companies should be disadvantaged by letting other countries get a leg up on us.

Personally, I think we should be helping our companies flourish internationally -- and tax them accordingly with that money going to health care, education, etc., here. We aren't going to afford those things long-term trading among ourselves.

They may get a "job" but the question is always just how "good" it is. It is why labor opposes the TPP. And what safety will they actually get, especially at this job so that their health is ensured. Will they get health care?

I have no problems in "helping" our multinationals flourish, but it must be tied to some assurance that the workers will share in the "flourishing". Does the TPP do that? Will it ensure that the workers in Vietnam share in it?

any of that with no investment. I agree workers in Vietnam don't get paid to our standards now, but they never will if we treat them like scabs. If the workers want to continue working in rice paddies they can, but they line up for jobs just like those at the BMW and Toyota pants in SC and Alabama, even though they don't get paid as much as they would have years ago. Should they get more sure, but you would deny them any chance, which I believe is shortsighted in a global world. I still believe we tax the hell out of profits and use it for social good.

I'm saying that dumping the middle class here, to create a slave class there, isn't a great idea. It's about as effective as trickle down economics. If you want to lift them up, you're going to have to create the incentives for them to be treated well. It's no different than having bans on slave labor. You set some sort of standards for how labor is treated (both here AND there).

get better jobs, etc. Same way Americans did it with English, French, Spanish, etc., investment. And there are incentives for labor rights in the TPP. The fact they are not perfect from an Americafirster's perspective shouldn't cloud the fact they are better than what exists now in those countries.

What level of destruction of the middle class in the US should we allow in order to accomplish some marginal increase in labor opportunities in Vietnam? What assurance do we have that such a condition will occur? How much slave labor in a country do we tolerate while we wait for these trickle down benefits to the workers in a country? As it is now, we don't particularly enforce labor protection provisions in the treaties we have. What would lead one to believe it will be any different in future administrations?

The theory that looser trade restrictions with countries with poor worker protection provisions will some how improve their situation just hasn't played out over history. Alternately, incentivizing/coercing countries to change their behaviors in order to be allowed to compete in our market places has a much better history.

Trade agreements tend to fail because goods, services and capital are allowed to move around the world, but labor itself is not. This is true from grape pickers to doctors. Their freedom of movement is HIGHLY regulated. I'm not sure why goods and capital should not also be regulated as such.

of the world's resources and wealth, but screw everyone else.

Our new motto seems to be "screw everyone else to get a cheaper TV".

Plus "cheap" TVs are better than what we'd produce at 3 times the cost of history is any indication.

The quality of most high end stuff is better, even the stuff made here. You don't need to use slave labor to get high quality products. You just need it for low cost. It also helps to have few if any environmental controls.

People have been burned by these trade agreements in the past and thus now are very suspicious of them...especially when they are negotiated by corporations and in secret.

What protections are there to American jobs?
What protections are there to American wages?

Corporations have made it a goal over the last 30 years or so to do everything possible to reduce labor costs and increase the bottom line and hoarding money at the top. Worker pay has declined/stagnated while CEO pay is soaring.

outlining why most trade deals are good for working Americans. I am trying to find it, but I'm curious if you've seen it.

Therein lies the problem for me, and it's why I would NEVER support it.

I stand corrected!

I support it now.

me too!

or rather, I bow to its inevitability.

Bowing to its inevitability would be the only option.

The unions and many environmental groups also oppose the TPP.

In general, I trust President Obama, but I am concerned that the TPP, while it is an improvement over NAFTA in some ways, does not go far enough in terms of labor protections. It would require the US government to actually have the will to enforce the labor protections against its own corporations, something I am not confident of. I also have concerns about the ability of corporations to sue for lost profits based on government regulation.

Interdependence was how WW I happened. Especially an interdependence which was intended to isolate a politically and economically powerful nation.

And the TPP won't "exclude" China from trade, it will merely create a trading region that is intended to compete better with China.

China will control the region if the US doesn't make strong alliances and a system as proposed right now

Dunno if you're paying attention, but there's a real conflict going on in the South China Sea right now with China getting very aggressive. Attempts on our part to isolate them within their own region of the world will most likely start a military conflict in the region.

We shouldn't be isolating them with a treaty that is predominately aimed at supporting the major international corporations and their profits. We should be attempting to incorporate them into their regional community. Especially with nations like South Korea, Australia, etc. God knows we don't want them to feel isolated such that they see North Korea as their only ally in the region.

from the things he said, but maybe I missed that somehow.

He is specifically selling the point that China is not included in the treaty for the purpose of attempting have greater influence in the region than China. What word would YOU use to describe this strategy? More importantly, what word do you think CHINA would use?

And don't they refuse to adhere to conditions such as environmental and employee controls? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but after hearing his reasoning, it started to make some sense.

Isolating China in the manner that the TPP is attempting to do will only make them more aggressive, not less. Yes, we have tons of trade with China. By trying to shift that trade out of their country, into their neighbors, isn't going to make them LESS aggressive. It's the same basic mistake Otto von Bismark made at the end of the 19th century. We want to INTEGRATE China into the world community, especially their regional community, not turn them into another North Korea.

is at stake. But still wondering why there is so much distrust about Obama's ideas about how to deal with this. Seems logical to me that keeping China in check is a worthy goal

He was against mandates until he was for them. He was against gay marriage until he was for it. He was insistent that the public option was necessary to "keep the insurance companies honest" right up until it wasn't necessary. Just because he is for or against something doesn't mean it is right. "Keeping China in check" is a very dangerous goal, one for which no one has made a good case for. Including them in their region would seem far more to our long term interests.

But like everything else with corporations, their foresight is about as far as the next financial statement.

I agree with your reasoning re the potus, btw. Well-intentioned can still be wrong.

that the regions of the world where there is the most violence are those regions that do not participate together in the world's economy.

The Middle East was the DRIVER of the international economy for a long time. They still dictate oil prices to a great degree. They participate HEAVILY in the world economies. Nothing in the TPP is going to change this much. Heck, the primary complaint of many of these countries citizens is that the world economies have TOO much influence inside their countries.

it sure doesn't employ all of its citizens. It's basically one thing. Sure some in those countries moved up by getting jobs in oil but many in the Middle East don't benefit, particularly the Palestinians who have been marginalized for decades. Don't see a lot of wealth in some of those countries at all, except at the top.

I don't know, but if anyone wants to see the press conference here's a link to the video:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?413535-1/radio-president-obama-holds-joint-news-conference-singapore-prime-minister-lee

Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh are all involved in the clothing industry already. It hasn't made them more peaceful. India is highly engaged in international commerce, yet they are sucked into the regional conflicts constantly. I just don't see that you (or Obama) can make a case that a trade treaty that ensure intellectual rights of corporations is going to particularly change the security situation there. Quite the opposite, there are loads of examples how engaging the west in commerce has enriched the oligarchs/dictators and allowed them to maintain power.

Heck, engaging China is HUGE amounts of commerce hasn't made them less hostile, if anything it has made them more aggressive (although I don't think there is actually any connection at all).

History has a dearth of examples of imperial powers like the US being able to change the social/political realities in other countries and cultures. Claiming that a treaty written primarily by international/multinational corporations whose focus is upon mechanisms for enforcing intellectual property rights, and restricting countries from interfering with their investments INSIDE the country is hard to defend by any historical example. Not that Obama has ever tried. Mostly he has just attacked his critics.

More than likely it will also see Garland confirmed to the Supreme Court.