Obama talks TPP on Hardball. Thoughts?

[DanTex]

I thought he was impressive and persuasive. I would have liked to hear him address the national sovereignty/tribunals issue, but other than that, I think he made a very strong case.

[jaysunb]

1. I agree. n/t

[Pirate Smile]

2. I agree as well.

[KMOD]

3. Agreed.

It was nice to hear his arguments for the trade pact.

Seemed very sensible and logical. I still though feel undereducated on this issue. I would like to learn more.

[SamKnause]

4. Really ???

I thought it was a corporate commercial for the TPP.

He was accompanied by members of the Chamber of Commerce.

There were no dissenting voices or opinions.

He mentioned the Free Trade Deal that he signed with South Korea,

but left out that it has cost the U.S. 75,000 jobs since 2011-2014 and

increased our trade deficit by billions.

I guess we watched two different programs.

If you would like a different perspective on the TPP,

may I suggest Democracy Now.

April 16th, 2015 A Corporate Trojan Horse.

Representative Alan Grayson and Lori Wallach discuss the TPP.

http://www.democracynow.org/

At the top of the page click on daily shows.

Click on Thursday, April 16th.

Scroll down, click on A Corporate Trojan Horse.

The video will come up.

It is about 16 or 17 minutes long.

[KMOD]

5. Matthews had Sherrod Brown arguing against TPP

last night.

There are compelling arguments for both sides.

It's not a black or white issue.

[SamKnause]

9. I am aware.

I was replying to specifics about the president

appearing today.

It is a black or white issue.

Free Trade Deals have raised our trade deficit and erased

millions of jobs.

It has destroyed entire towns.

It has devastated families.

It has lowered wages.

The U.S. never had a trade deficit until NAFTA passed !!!

It has increased every year since NAFTA passed and each

new trade deal adds to the trade deficit.

Please check out the video link I posted.

[KMOD]

12. I will check out your video.

However, I also hear the argument that many jobs have increased with trade.

I also hear, and agree that China is wreaking havoc on our economy.

It's not just a simple issue. There are pros and cons. I admit I need to understand and learn a lot more to be in agreement, but I also want to hear the other side out as well.

The world we grew up in is changing rapidly. I don't want to see our middle class hurt, but I also don't want to see them left behind. It's just not as easy and simple, to agree or not agree, as some are making it.

[SamKnause]

17. Thanks for your reply

and input.

I look forward to hearing from you after you view the video.

Have a great evening.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. Many jobs are created with trade. Wherever it's cheapest for them to exist.

Which almost always means in third world countries. Trade deals are great if you've got the cheapest labour or want to BE the cheapest labour. The whole point of trade deals is to rip out any barriers that prevent companies from manufacturing or selling as cheaply as possible. And that means the long-term destruction of middle classes the world over. Sure there will be some short term whack-a-mole job creation here and there, but it will disappear again as soon as it becomes cheaper to manufacture in some other country in the agreement. It's a perpetual cycle of chasing ever smaller costs of production and ever cheaper labour, until everyone, everywhere who isn't in the capital class is working in poverty.

Quite frankly, I'd far rather be 'left behind' then join in the race to starvation wages for Americans. We'd do better to start raising trade barriers again, manufacturing everything domestically, and become self-sufficient as a country even if it meant everything cost more. At least at that point, we wouldn't be competing with 25 cent a day labourers elsewhere in the world.

[madville]

6. Many top Democrats are opposing this

It's a Republican dream, in deals like this the USA has to come down a few notches in order for lesser nations to gain, you don't create prosperity out of thin air, someone has to give something up for others to gain.

[haikugal]

32. Then let the 1% give it, the 99% have been giving for over 30 years.

[cherokeeprogressive]

105. Done. The 1% will give it, and the rest of us are off the hook.

Man, that was EASY.

[haikugal]

109. The 1% takes, they don't give.

[Hekate]

7. Agreed. China is muscling in everywhere, and they do not play by our rules. ...

If we want any say at all, we must make agreements with those other nations before China succeeds in buttoning them all up, because China is not waiting for our Congress to get its shit together.

Now, the President said this much more elegantly than I just did -- but even more forcefully.

[redstateblues]

8. After Ed Shultz's fevered opposition

I liked hearing Obama's reasoning. And BTW, Matthews played a lot of video of the opponents.

[myrna minx]

10. Why aren't the republicans foaming at the mouth over this?

Why are they silent and not opposing the President about this as they do at every turn? Why aren't they calling him a socialist, commie, dictator, tree hugging, gay, czar about this deal? iIn fact the republicans support this deal. Why? When has any such trade deal been good for the average American
Worker?

President Clinton never paid a political price for NAFTA and the job destruction it caused, so I suppose President Obama must think the unsavory political sting to his legacy is short term.

[global1]

11. Maybe They're Letting The Dems Do The Dirty Work For Them - hmmmmmm.... nt

[merrily]

22. Mitch McConnell said he can work with Obama on this.

The same Mitch McConnell who told Republicans to block Obama on everything.

Guess ole Mitch had himself a TPP epiphany!

[Populist_Prole]

25. I know; it's amazing!

Made more amazing yet by DU-ers not connecting the dots, some studiously, some not.

[Aerows]

13. What my thoughts are

Include NO. Hell No.

What my thoughts weren't included ... NO.

The TPP is like a tampon loaded with staph, and everyone screams you can use it to stop the bleeding, while you get toxic shock syndrome.

While sacrificing yourself.

[Bohunk68]

89. Like a tampon loaded with staph.

Damn I like that. I will surely use it.

[Aerows]

106. Occasionally,

I have a horribly harsh way with words.

I wish I had harsher, stronger, more pus-laden descriptions for my opinion on the TPP.

[truebluegreen]

14. Doesn't it give any of TPP's fans pause

that Republicans are FOR it? Hello?

President Obama is on the wrong side on this, and so are too many Democrats, including the way-and-see-ers.

[Populist_Prole]

24. I've asked the same thing

And the shills never adress it.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

28. this is just me speculating

But if some of the reps have brains this is the perfect way to try stopping something from being passed.(can't be done often)

Republican support equals horrible idea...so they say they support a initiative by the dems/president that they want to fail and a fairly sized group of democrats will stand up and protest the idea as a big mistake.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

83. They control both houses of Congress.

They can pass it without any Dems at all if it's so wonderful.

[merrily]

45. Well, we got a couple of lowdown posts on this thread purporting to address that.

[DanTex]

76. Yes, it does. But it is possible for something to be good for both workers and corporations.

It's not zero-sum. Another example is the debt ceiling. In that case business lobbies including the Chamber of Commerce were in favor of raising it, because they understood the damage that would ensue if it didn't get raised.

[woolldog]

86. Not at all.

I don't choose my positions based on who supports them and who doesn't. I exercise some independent thought. Most of the time my positions don't align with the GOP. Sometimes they do. This is a case where it does.

The notion that Republicans are always on the wrong side of the issues and therefore whatever they're for, I should be against is a very poor way of looking at/deciding on policy and a recipe for never getting anything done.

[truebluegreen]

98. Independent thinking is great,

but expecting it on the right side of the aisle is a recipe for failure. These are not the Republicans of the 50s and 60s. In this era, the conservatives are always and only concerned about giving their clients--multinational corporations and the rich--what they want. It is disappointing beyond words--although not surprising--to see President Obama line up with them.

And if "nothing gets done" on this, or on any other of their insane proposals, I'm fine with that.

[woolldog]

108. I don't look at what they think at all.

I'm not looking not for independent thinking ...or any thinking...on that side of the aisle. My point is that how they're thinking is irrelevant to my thinking on the issue. It's just a red herring.

[pscot]

15. I don't believe him

[SamKnause]

19. Thank you for saying that.

I don't believe him either.

The facts point to him being incorrect.

[napi21]

30. The problem I think is that the only person who knows the FACTS is the PRESIDENT.

None of us can say "The facts say differently" because we don't KNOW the facts. I don't believe Obama would fight so hard for something he believed would harm the middle class or the Country. I'm still unsure why this deal has to be such a secret? What's wrong with letting him complete the negotiations, THEN releasing a copy of the agreement?

[lonestarnot]

36. Yes that is the problem, the shroud of secrecy as to the deal all the way around and under it.

[merrily]

53. You forgot the sarcasm emote, right?

[napi21]

102. NO, I didn't intend sarcasm. nt

[Cha]

20. Of course you don't believe President Obama. That's been obvious. I don't care.

[cali]

59. because there is a considerable body of evidence against the tpp

[winter is coming]

21. +1. Something in his voice and manner when he was saying "they're wrong"

gave me the impression that he knew he was bullshitting. I don't know why he's so behind this--perhaps he feels it's the best of several bad options--but he knows the folks objecting to it are right.

[Bohunk68]

90. That's exactly what struck me as I watched when

Rachel replayed parts of the interview. His voice and mannerisms, his eyes looking aside often. I have supported him a lot, especially because of the treatment that he has to endure. I have bad vibes with this plan that we know damn little about,

[lovemydog]

16. Here's some video.

Five-minute clip on youtube:

Hour of video at msnbc:

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/president-obama-defends-tpp-deal-431711811768

[joshcryer]

18. Thanks.

Impressive.

[myrna minx]

27. Why aren't the Republicans screaming about this? If this was a good deal

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 07:24 AM - Edit history (1)

for the American worker, this would be something the Republicans would oppose - and scream from the rooftops! The Republicans are conspicuously absent from this debate while they, for *SOME* reason aquiese to the President for this one deal, a man who they call Kenyon, Communist, Socialist, etc. Where are they for this? Silent. This is no deal that will help the common person.

[neverforget]

31. Well the US Chamber of Commerce, Orin Hatch and Paul Ryan are for it so what's not to love?

I'm sure they're looking out for the working class.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/21/u-s-chamber-afl-cio-clash-at-senate-hearing-over-obamas-free-trade-push/

But Trumka railed against the process, arguing the bill is essentially a rubber-stamp for the administration to pass a massive free trade and regulatory pact with countries that compose 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product.

Trumka said the Obama administration has spent more than five years already negotiating the terms with the Asia Pacific nations and that the negotiating principles contained the fast-track legislation are pointless because the deal is almost finished.

"The idea that fast track lets Congress set goals for the TPP is an absolute fiction," he said. "The instructions you send them will have no effect whatsoever."

Hatch expressed confidence the bill would win support from some Democrats. But he acknowledged the difficult politics for many on the other side of the aisle.

"Mr. Trumka, you haven’t helped them here today with your criticisms," Hatch said.

"Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that," Trumka replied.

[Hoyt]

34. Tbaggers are, they don't like foreigners. They seem to be aligning with Democrats

who believe Obama is selling us down the river.

[merrily]

41. See Reply 40.

[Hoyt]

46. Yeah, explain why some here say screw Vietnamese and Mexican workers.

The folks above are saying Obama and TPP are obviously wrong if Republicans like it.. While that might be true on most issues, it's not on this.

[merrily]

48. Haven't seen "some here" say that. if you have, you should have asked them to explain, not me.

Good deflection attempt, but that does not make your claims about Democrats any less low or any less transparent.

[myrna minx]

62. We were promised that NAFTA would empower Mexican workers

as well as other impoverished workers in North America. Howard Dean seems to think NAFTA did when he appeared on Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night. Do you believe NAFTA empowered impoverished Mexican/North American workers? That was the big claim for NAFTA 20 years ago.

Since the negotiations are done in secret, which is how deals are struck, we don't know what's in TPP. We can only suss out some clues - and only make educated guesses, Republicans like Paul Ryan, the Chamber of Commerce as well as the President are supporting it. If we can extrapolate based on past treaties, where we were promised all that we're promised now, we can concluded that the results will be the same.

[PeteSelman]

58. This is the correct question to ask.

If this helped the American worker the least bit, they'd be screaming bloody murder.

[joshcryer]

114. Because anything with the words "trade agreement" are popular.

Among their constituents. They wouldn't want to ruffle feathers on an agreement that uses those two words. They probably don't like the potential labor and environmental aspects of the agreement.

[Cha]

23. A couple of tweets I saw on the interview..

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 03:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
Follow
PBO to Dems: "I'm willing to go through step by step every argument they've made & knock them down because it's simply not true" #TPP

BOOM
1:28 PM - 21 Apr 2015 57 Retweets 27 favorites '

Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka
Follow
Haven't seen #hardball in years but Pres. Obama is making it fun. Chris tried to imply both parties are the same and POTUS shut. that. down.

1:25 PM - 21 Apr 2015 36 Retweets 19 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2015/04/21/the-president-holds-a-reception-for-supporters-of-h-r-2/

[myrna minx]

29. Why are the Republicans giddy, and happy about this deal? Why is there, after years of calling the

President a communist, dictator, socialist, Kenyan etc, for the first time, a Republican majority is ready to vote for this trade deal? Why are the republicans over the moon for this?

Why aren't the Republicans fighting the President on this deal at every turn considering they think he's a commie/kenyan blah blah? Why are all republicans for this deal and why are the progressives in Congress fighting against it? Why are the progressives the enemy for many at this site?

[Hoyt]

33. Actually tbaggers are against it, they don't like foreigners and such.

Some Democrats seem to be aligning with them.

[merrily]

40. Disgusting to equate opposition to TPP with xenophobia on the part of Democrats.

The insinuations on this board seem to get lower by the week.

[Hoyt]

44. It's clear some folks don't give a darn about some poor Mexican or Vietnamese when it comes to

money.

When you get right down to it, from their perspective most Americans are the 1%ers.

[merrily]

47. Oh, please. Saying anything to support Obama and/or Hillary and/or

neoliberals does not equate to concern for people in other nations.

The implication that the likes of Mitch McConnell support TPP because of love of workers in other nations and Democrats oppose it because of callous xenophobia could not possibly be more laughable.

[Hoyt]

49. Then why is supporting Obama and his vision for TPP associated with Republicans?

[merrily]

50. Read my post again. Maybe you'll figure it out.

[Hoyt]

54. The one that says if Republicans support it, it must be wrong. Well Tbaggers support your view of

trade with foreign countries. What does that tell you, using your logic?

[merrily]

55. Your smears could not possibly be further removed from logic. Or from truth.

And, as I previously posted, saying anything to support neoliberals and their policies does not equate to concern for the poor people of ANY country, be it the US or another nation.

[DanTex]

74. You're actually dodging the question.

Your argument is that the TPP must be bad because the Chamber of Commerce, Paul Ryan, etc. support it. Which is a fair argument, when have they ever supported something good?

But the same logic implies that TPP must be good because teabaggers oppose it. When have teabaggers ever been right?

[neverforget]

57. why does the US Chamber of Commerce, Sen Orin Hatch and Rep Paul Ryan support it while

Sen Sherrod Brown, Warren, Merkley and a lot of Democrats, unions and environmental groups oppose it? Are they xenophobic or what?

[djean111]

65. Then why didn't Obama say hey - this will suck for Americans and drive down American wages

and cost American jobs, but it will be fantastic for other countries? If this is true, then why lie about the advantage to America?
The point of the TPP is, IMO, to drive all wages down. The point of the TPP is global corporate profits, and individual countries are irrelevant.

[Hoyt]

66. Because improving conditions in foreign countries is good for the USA in many ways.

[djean111]

68. And the Americans who are jobless or can only get jobs at lower wages and less benefits are

sacrificial lambs. To repeat - why does Obama keep saying the TPP will be good for the workers in THIS country?
The workers here still need to live, and the cost of living here is not going down with wages. Why has Obama said 650,000 new jobs? Unless he is just deliberately omitting to say where those jobs will be?

[Hoyt]

71. Some will from foreign companies that move here. Some will be domestic companies

that go there and take our people. Those are still American jobs, and darn good ones too. Those folks come home and spend it here, supporting jobs here.

Some will be increased exports of our autos/trucks, industrial equipment, engineering expertise, construction services, etc. Those are American jobs.

Sadly, some of it will be armaments and security services.. Those too are American jobs.

Some other examples here. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/business/economy/should-us-services-companies-get-breaks-abroad.html?referrer=

You gotta think beyond your small world.. Please think before you respond with "yeah, but."

[djean111]

77. I think you are attempting to put lipstick on a pig. Unsuccessfully.

I will stick with Warren and Stieglitz. I suspect what I think is, in a way, futile, but I will consider my feelings on the trade agreements when voting or asked for support.

There is no reason to think this will not be even worse than NAFTA or KORUS. Unless, of course, you see the job losses as good.
In any event, we shall soon see what is in this, right? Hopefully before it is set in stone.
The United States is not what I would call a small world. I suppose a bright spot is that if enough jobs are lost, the MIC and the health insurance industries will be at each others' throats for what wages are left.
A bad outcome is not enough being paid into Social Security - but I guess you think we should give that up, too.

[Hoyt]

80. We are not going to have good jobs trading among ourselves. No, I am for Social Security and

the next generation that will pay our benefits while wondering if there will be anything for them when the time comes. To do that, we need expanding access to good jobs and that requires world trade, among other things like access to affordable education, health care, etc. We won't get there trading among ourselves anymore.

[djean111]

84. I don't believe we are meant to have access to affordable education and health care.

This is just for corporate profits, and I believe that years from now, we will still be buying Vietnamese shrimp with excrement in it, and fish caught by slaves - those of us who could afford that stuff, anyway. The big difference will be that there will be no labels as to country of origin. And expecting other countries to have the same standards as ours will be deemed injurious to profit.

[Hoyt]

91. Fortunately, Democrats are starting to speak out. Just heard Rep Gerry Connolly note why he solidly

supports TPP -- as the Prez describes/touts it -- and why Warren is wrong. I guess he's a DINO, or some other derisive term.

I doubt we will be eating Vietnamese shrimp with excrement, but good way to slight people we've exploited.

[djean111]

92. We are probably already eating it. I don't buy shrimp at all any more.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/consumers-eating-feces-tainted-shrimp-fish-seafood-asia/story?id=17491264

The November issue of Bloomberg Markets magazine, in a piece on food poisoning and safety, says that it is common practice in some parts of Asia to feed fish pig waste. It describes, for example, the sanitary conditions at a fish factory on the southern coast of Vietnam. "Flies," it says, "crawl over baskets of processed shrimp."

The shrimp at some plants are packed in ice. That's good. What's bad: it's ice made from water often found to be contaminated with bacteria and unfit for human consumption, say Bloomberg's reporters in Hanoi.

Vietnam ships 100 million pounds of shrimp a year to the U.S., about 8 percent of the shrimp sold in America.

,,,,,,,

Outside Hong Kong, at a tilapia farm, fish are fed a diet that includes pig and geese feces. That practice, Michael Doyle tells Bloomberg Markets, is unsafe for U.S. consumers, because the manure may be contaminated with salmonella. Doyle is director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. Fish farmers, he says, use fecal matter as a cheaper alternative to commercial fish food.

The FDA inspects food shipments to the United States, including seafood shipments, but the agency's resources are limited, says Bloomberg's report. It is able to inspect fewer than 3 percent of shipments. Of that, reports Bloomberg, much is sent back. The FDA has rejected 1,380 shipments of Vietnamese seafood since 2007, finding filth and salmonella.

The defense to this is that they have always done this.

I suppose we should not care about this stuff, and eat it anyway, just to be polite.

[Hoyt]

93. What is your criticism of Mexico, Malaysia, Peru, Chile, etc.

As to Vietnam, anything you would buy from those we bombed and exploited? And it sounds like FDA is doing a good job of blocking contaminated shipments. You know, there is contaminated American food too.

[djean111]

94. So you see the TPP as penance for past deeds. Way to move the goalposts.

This will just drive all wages down. But there is no point in answering your posts any more.

[Hoyt]

96. True. You seem to believe you are powerless to keep your wages from dropping to Vietnamese levels.

If it were me, I'd support stuff that will raise their wages if you really believe that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

87. You mean the folks for TPP?

Trade deals drive down wages EVERYWHERE. They increase the accessible pools of labour available to capital, which means you're forever chasing ever cheaper labour. They might temporarily raise wages in one place, but in the long term, we all sink to a lowest common denominator, and end up living in overcrowded slums while the capitalists live in gated, guarded luxury compounds.

You want to HELP Mexican and Vietnamese workers? Don't do 'free trade' deals. Do 'labour deals'. Make deals NOT to trade with countries who do not meet minimum wage standards. Force those countries to pay as much as countries with whom they want to trade, not to offer cheaper labour to capitalists.

[Hoyt]

97. There is a chance of that if you have no real skills and our economy is on decline. That's

why trade deals, education, etc., are important. We aren't going to prosper by trading among ourselves. Sorry, it just ain't gonna happen.

[myrna minx]

61. Progressives and liberals have consistently been against job sucking trade deals

and disastrous environmental deals well before the advent of the baggers (and the election of President Obama), so nice try to make it seem that those dubious of this trade deal, and those who lived through the aftermath of NAFTA are just like the racist xenophobic baggers. That's horribly disingenuous and offensive.

Boy we were sold a bill of goods with NAFTA. Much of the glory we're promised with this deal. I even have the letter response from Senator Wellstone after I wrote and implored him not to vote for it. Past is prologue.

Why isn't FOX News sending out an alert about it?

[lovemydog]

37. I'm currently opposed to it Cha

but am interested in hearing more about what President Obama and also plenty of labor leaders have to say about it after more details are made public.

I'm also waiting to hear from President Obama on who he endorses for President. My guess is that will be a ways away, after the primaries, lol.

I can wait. In the meantime I'll try to learn as much as possible. This one is a very tough call for me Cha. As you know I hold President Obama in the highest regard and will continue to regardless of how this particular matter comes down.

[Cha]

56. I hear ya, lovemydog. As someone said.. it's not "condescending".. Pres Obama believes this

to be true. I don't care what those say who don't hold him in any regard except to take cheap pot shots at him relentlessly. They have no credibility for me.

"After the primaries is right".. Someone asked him recently who he wanted it to be and he said something like.. "there's a whole Dem Primary to go through."

[merrily]

43. Gotta respect tweets!

[Populist_Prole]

26. Condescending as hell, I thought

As if nobody's memory is older than a month, or lack the ability to connect the dots of cause & effect.

He does sound confident and persuasive, I'll give him that. But he's full of shit on this issue.

I think he was pulled aside and given a talking to: One to the effect that he pushes this, or else he's made enemys in places very high.

[lonestarnot]

35. He sound like he's "got this."

He says labor is covered.

[merrily]

39. Silly unions.

Did Bubba assure us labor was covered by NAFTA, too?

[lonestarnot]

42. No bubba didn't. Bubba whipped up NAFTA, which sucks ass. No one really knows what is in

the agreement. Who are the alleged leakers? Anybody can say anything. and PS Bubba did get his knob shined. No word on anything like that re current Mr. President.

[merrily]

113. Labor vs. trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

[lonestarnot]

115. and your wikipedia reference is for what purpose?

[merrily]

38. The one thing everyone on this board agrees about is that Obama can speak persuarively when he wants

[gwheezie]

51. I'm not against trade deals

Our economy is global. My concern is that the GOP supports it and trade deals in the past have not worked to the american workers advantage and they destroy the local economies of 3rd world countries.
The top .01% have enough control over the world. They have no country. They are not patriots. They don't act for the good of the future of the world.

[Jamaal510]

52. I'm still undecided and

am waiting to see what the final draft says, but he did make firm and rational points. For example, I think he made a key point when he differentiated it from NAFTA, Columbia, and other trade deals, and when he made the case that continuing on with our current situation would be the status quo and allow China the upper hand. I have a better understanding of why he wants the TPP than I did when just hearing from the progressive critics.

[lamp_shade]

60. So did I. I'd also venture to guess that many of the TPP opponents

chose not to watch or, if they did, chose not to listen.

[pscot]

95. I listened in '93 when the same arguments

were put forward to promote NAFTA, which was a disaster for American workers. I think Obama wears Free Market ideological blinders, just like Bill Clinton. I give both of them the benefit of the doubt . They believe what they're saying. I think they're wrong. The evidence of the last 20 years tells me they are wrong. Obama is trying to sell us a pig in a poke. If he won't let me see the pig, I ain't gonna buy it.

[newfie11]

63. If it's so good why keep it a secret nt

[ucrdem]

64. The demagogues are having a field day.

I guess they know a gravy train when they see it but it's a pretty sorry spectacle to see educated adults like Sanders and Warren running around like a couple of Black Helicopter-fearing nutjobs.

[Hoyt]

67. I've lost some respect for them for that very reason.

[polichick]

69. Used his persona to deflect. How could someone like him steer you wrong?

[Sancho]

70. Here's Obama's mistake(s) IMHO.

He said that the US could not compete for low-wage manufacturing: "that ship has sailed", so the US needs to set up for service jobs and things we do best (technology, energy, etc.). I don't like that logic at all!

That seems to be a Chamber of Commerce argument. Why not increase wages in the US? Make it much harder to take money overseas - and get our middle class manufacturing paying better because the money stays home.

He didn't mention investment in infrastructure so that the US is more competitive for manufacturing jobs compared to countries without the modern infrastructure.

He didn't say much about labor unions and demanding a TPP opening the door for international organizing.

He didn't include the loss of government jobs, raiding of pension funds (sometimes by taking companies international AKA Romney),

In short, I think Obama's a good speaker, but in this case he is either hoodwinked by the wall street guys or else he is wrong in his thinking. I think Obama has a good understanding of the legal process, but his background and experience with economics is depending on advice. He is getting bad advice most likely.

Getting a deal so that we can beat China is a fine goal, but getting a bad deal is also a problem. Maybe he needs to have a different team negotiating the TPP.

At this point, I really think the TPP might be stopped. The only reason Obama was on TV is because he realizes that the TPP is DOA. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done the interview.

[DanTex]

73. Good post. I would like to see Obama or someone pro-TPP address those points also.

[gollygee]

75. How many technology service jobs are in the US anymore?

The trend has definitely been to move those overseas.

[Sancho]

88. If you mean answering phones and doing the books, yes they are going away.

But that doesn't have to be the case. Obama was the one who mentioned the US being the leader in service jobs if I recall correctly. I disagree with that goal.

Unless we could export medical care, education, and similar things as services, it makes sense for the US to maintain it's manufacturing base as much as possible.

[gollygee]

72. I can't trust any "free trade agreement"

I remember when NAFTA passed and what that did for local jobs. My area used to be very industrial, and after NAFTA, it very quickly became a bunch of vacant factories.

[DanTex]

78. That's exactly what Obama addressed. Not all "free trade agreements" are the same.

Did you watch the interview?

[gollygee]

81. I had it on

but that's a really busy time of the day for me. I have kids, and one of them is still little. I'll try to watch it online if I can find it.

I have an inclination to distrust anything about free trade agreements, and I think if it was a good idea there would be more openess, so I have a lot of skepticism regardless of what he says. (And for the record, I am generally an Obama supporter.)

[RedCappedBandit]

82. He can't make a strong case with all the secrecy around the bill. nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

99. He can't make much of ANY case so long as it's classified.

For now, "the detractors are wrong," "it's better than NAFTA," and "trust me" are about all we're going to get, officially.

So I guess a lot of it is boiling down to how comfortable one is with the concept and the players involved.

[KG]

85. the prez likes it?

well, that's good enough for me! all you haters need to get on the right side of history!

[LordGlenconner]

100. He sold me on it.

it should definitely be fast tracked.

[upaloopa]

101. Here is what I got out of it. The TPP is a means

to block China from controlling trade with the Asian countries. That is why it is so important. But the down side is the hurt it will put on average working class Americans. It is a trade off.
The trade deal looks toward the future and those getting hurt will need to find a way to deal with it. Highly educated young people with skills in innovation and the service industry will survive because that is what we will trade for goods from Asia.
The old world will need to give way to the new. Obama said two things that make this clear. He said globalization will not be reversed and manufacturing jobs are being replaced by technology. Also he said people will need to be trained for the new jobs created by trade agreements.
If you find yourself needing factory jobs you are out of luck. The idea is the same as the loss of work by blacksmiths when the automobile replaced the horse.
The 800 lb elephant in the room and the need for secrecy is that unskilled Americans and those with unneeded skills will be sacrificed.
In the macro long term picture we will be better off. In the short term micro picture a lot of people are going to be left out in the cold or need to find a way to survive.

[lovemydog]

104. Thanks. I've been trying to learn more about it

and appreciate your input.

[Elwood P Dowd]

111. The garbage in the post above is about trade and only a small part of TPP.

The majority of TPP is about a total corporate takeover of our laws and regulations from the local level to the federal level. 85% of the people participating in the negotiations were corporate lawyers and lobbyists.

Just look at the most enthusiastic backers -- Mitch McConnell, Orrin Hatch, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, the RNC, Cato, Heritage, the US Chamber Of Commerce, Wall Street.

[lovemydog]

112. Thanks for the information.

Yeah, I'm currently opposed to the TPP. I'm also trying to learn more about it. Everyone learns in different ways. For me, I like to get as much information, including from those in favor of it, as possible. I tend to ignore the rhetoric.

[KamaAina]

103. Was Tweety in full man-crush mode?

[Aerows]

107. TPP will be the death knell of our nation

It will strip the sovereignty of all nations in favor of corporate gimme's.

I have no fucks to give if President Obama signs this pile of horrible, dissembling, unfair and unjust pile of legislative horse shit.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

110. disingenuous

It was a sales pitch for a car he wouldn't tell you anything about